OK, the new Macondo frame is over as well. Eventually after 6 years of learning how to make the damn horn speaker to sound good, after numerous incremental successes and failures, stupidity and brightness, moves to wrong direction and mistaken assessments, after quite a lot of money and time invested and after quite many interesting and exciting discoveries the Macondo is shaping up it it’s new and hopefully it’s last apostasy…

I very much like how it feels now. In particularly I like that a one person could easily (despite of the total mass: 250 pounds upper bass horn, the 80 pounds upper bass frame, 150 pounds MF + HF + ballast assembly + 60 Pounds Fundamental Channel assembly and 120 pounds of frame = 660 pounds) slide the entire speaker across the carpet in it’s search for DPoLS. The only next step that I will consider will be budding inside the frame between the MF horn and upper bass horn a 4 channels single-stage Melquiades (thank God all 4 channels are 109dB sensitive) It will be fun to plug the RCA form my preamp right into the Macondo’s frame….However, it will be another thread….

In the end I would like to express my gratitude to everyone who provided help and advisement in conception of the idea of a new horn for Macondo. “It is raining in Macondo.” sent the comendant the telegram… So, it is in Boston….

I spent today couple hours starting to search the DPoLS for Macondo. So far I am far from target but the experience was quite amassing. The “new”, properly aligned Macondo, with the bells and Water Drop and whistles does quite well. I have some “tested” recordings that I usually use for DPoLS experiment but here the Macondo did so nice that I decided to play something very complex and to see how Macondo will swallow it.

I took Mahler VI by Karajan and Berlin. Karajan is hardly my most adored conductor but I need to pay the dues where it warranted. Karajan was able to convert Berlin Philharmonic into such an ideal playing machine that it is scare. The Studio recording of Mahler VI was from my point of view one of those many performances. Sure it is not the psychedelic and hypnotizing live performance of Barbirolli with Philharmonia but from another hand it still have own very high merit.

The Berlin orchestra on this recording sound so interesting that it is possible to dive and swim in that Sound, razing on waves of the Mahler’s frenzied bombastisizm and sinking into the valleys of Berlin’s amassing ability to play pianissimo. The discipline of this performance is extraordinary and it requires a very high discipline of playback to play it, and particularly to play it at realistic volume levels.

I very much appreciate what Macondo did today. I detected some minor problems but I know how to address them. However, all together it was a perfect sensation to surmise this thread declaring the last modification of my Macondo as a great success…

I never thought this way but it might has own merit…

A local audio guy stopped by toady to listen the “new” Macondo. He is not too heavy in classical repertoire but he quite tolerable with classical range and “get” good music quite well. So, spending some times with Milqed Macondo he said something interesting. I played for him some unknown to him classical recordings and he was listening them attentively and engaged. After the session he observed that the music I played to him he did not know and would hardly pay too much attention to it if he heard it on radio.

However, he felt that Macondo during the pay that new for him music made so many sonically interesting “things” that he as audio guy was very much attracted initially to the sonic “freakishness” of Macondo and then, while he was observing the details of the pure Sonic presentation, he developed his interest to the musical piece itself…

I never thought this way. If so, then could some purely audio tricks (that Macondo does well in this case) be a gateway to ignite better musical interest?

And here I've been thinking that this was one of your fixed tenets all along.  It makes perfect sense to me, anyway.

Can there be any doubt that "difficult" music is mostly unbearable "reproduced" electronically?

My daughter used to love Ives, Hindemith, etc., when we had charter seats at the symphony where we used to live.  But she ran out of the room when I played the same stuff on my hi-fi, and I was pretty much forcing myself to listen, for that matter.

I now have things set so deeper music is actually more "interesting" and "desireable" than lighter fare, most of the time.

I am guessing that with your musical taste and OCD approach you have a great "portal" into even the most troubling works.  This has to be very cool, and no doubt you could make some converts, if you have the patience for it.

Like your guest said, "serious" music rarely gets so much as a nod from average folks who hear it obliquely on the radio or TV, and who can blame them!  It is only on rare occasions that I can listen to complex material, even things like late Beethoven quartets, on a crappy little system, and it only gets worse on the average big crappy system, with the worst torture being those effing "mega systems" that double as HT sound effects generators.  Gott im Himmel!

I long for the day when there is more general interest in the arts, literature, and real music.

I'm not holding my breath.

Maybe you could offer to let groups of school children come by your place for a listen twice a week...;>}.

They're not allowed to read "Catcher In The Rye" anymore, but maybe they could take in some Franck?

Best regards,
Paul S

Romy the Cat wrote:

while he was observing the details of the pure Sonic presentation, he developed his interest to the musical piece itself… Rgs, Romy the Cat

I hope to hear your impressions of the extent of the differences between the Macondos with the waterdrops and new stands to how they may have sounded previously.

Congrats,

Simon

Simon wrote:

I hope to hear your impressions of the extent of the differences between the Macondos with the waterdrops and new stands to how they may have sounded previously.

Yes, there are differences between the “tripoded” Macondo and what I got now but they are not because the speaker but because the ease to move the entire horns section as one single entity. It is very convenient and very affective for precise speaker positioning. It allows the shape the “imaging curve” very precisely, along many other speaker positioning things…. 

Considering the conclusions of my recent experiences that I described in the following thread:

http://www.GoodSoundClub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=6876

I would like to share some of my observation that the people who would go multi-way horns might find useful. Since this is a there about the Macondo Frame here are some conclusions that I ended up with Macondo. I know that I need to go for fine-positioning but my wondering was how to arrange it in context of the entire frame. What I concluded is that in context of Macondo I need to precise-position only one horn.

First I thought to precise-position tweeter. I got very cool .001mm slide table but then I changed my mind and figured out that a positioning of the MF channel is the keystone for Macondo time alignment.

Take a look at the image below

The red number indicates the importance of alignment between the channels. As you can see if I hard-bolt the MF and slide the tweeter then I would have 2 the most critical dimensions (1 and 2) that I need to position precise. In case if I hard-bolt tweeter then I have 2 less critical dimensions that I need to align (1 and 3).

Generals it is absolutely the best to have the Injection Channel precise-positioned but the Injection Channel runs 10-15dB down of MF channel so it is not as critical as it might feel. (Pay attention that I draw the diagram above running the Injection Channel at minus 3dB to MF Channel)

Anyhow, keep in mind that if you make a frame that does not need and alignment … then you are a genius and designed very good frame…

Back in the thread “Adding one more non-spherical to Macondo” (linked) I was bitching that t make accommodations for the new Multicell in the Macondo frame will be too difficult. However, I had a revelation two days ago. I spoke with my machinist about it, described the changes, the difficulties to bring the frame to him and the difficulties to come up with a proper design ides how to mount the horn. Then my machinist told me something that absolutely shocked me as it one more time informed me that I am inertia driven idiot.  He told me: “Why you need to pay me a few hundred dollars and to breaks your head how to make all those harnesses if you can but own welding machine for even less money then you will pay to me and do all that you need yours at home.”

I honestly go absolutely shocked with it. All my live living in City such a luxury as own welding machine was absolutely out question but now I am a suburban asshole with a dedicated 870 sq feet working shop in basements. How come that I forgot it?!!! Of cause I will buy a welding toll and will do it myself, I juts need to find out how welding progressed in US since I welded last time 25 years back. I was looking and I saw a lot of wonderful MIG welders, including gasless, so it is so simple after all.

Yes, I will buy some kind of own welding too and I will do what I need with the frame. I have so many little things that I would like to do with Macondo frame, equipment stand and even with Milqs stand but I never did it.

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=2715

With my own welding all those projects would be very simple to render. I have next doe to me a metal shop that cut any profile of any metal I wish. What a great discovery! Of cause I will tweak the Macondo Frame now!

Romy the Cat wrote:

Considering the conclusions of my recent experiences that I described in the following thread: http://www.GoodSoundClub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=6876 I would like to share some of my observation that the people who would go multi-way horns might find useful. Since this is a there about the Macondo Frame here are some conclusions that I ended up with Macondo. I know that I need to go for fine-positioning but my wondering was how to arrange it in context of the entire frame. What I concluded is that in context of Macondo I need to precise-position only one horn. First I thought to precise-position tweeter. I got very cool .001mm slide table but then I changed my mind and figured out that a positioning of the MF channel is the keystone for Macondo time alignment. Take a look at the image below Rgs, Romy the Cat

oxric wrote:

I have spent hours coming up with all sorts of weird and wonderful, but at other times too rigid systems to support the various components comprising what I modestly choose to call Le Horn (AKA Rakeshorns). I have more or less decided on the final design but would like some thoughts on the issue of positioning the MF channel (400Hz tractrix - possibly 550Hz tractrix or 550 Lecleach after experimenting) with respect to the Upperbass channel and the tweeter in the vertical plane. My initial view was that I needed to leave about 5cm between MF (Vitavox S2) and my 96cm diameter UB115 horns and similarly between the MF and the ribbon tweeter (Lazy ribbon from Raal initially). I was prepared to leave a certain amount of overlap between tweeter and Injection channel (250Hz tractrix - possibly 320Hz Lecleach, if I decide to include this). However, my latest view is that I need to reduce these vertical distances to the bare minimum and I am considering to have the UB115 and MF channels with no vertical gap whatsoever and likewise between MF and Raal tweeter, and have the Injection channel so low it covers upper part of Raal Lazy ribbon by 2-3 cm. The main constraint is that although the ceiling height is approximetely 235cm, there is a 40cm thick beam going across the room in front of the area where I want to position the horns which leave a floor to beam height of 190-195cm. The frame I have designed (not yet built) gives me a fair amount of adjustability but it would be great if I could position the supports more or less where they will end up being eventually. Any thoughts anyone?

If I were you then I would not do what you are doing now – I mean to design frame. I know it sounds odd – I am advocating thinking about frame but at the same time I am persuading do not make frame. Ironically there is no conflict in it and if to look deeper then I see a lot of rational in my position.

What kind frame a person can come up with if he does not know what configuration of playback he will end up with? Yes, you can make the very flexible frame that can accommodate many setting buy why do you need a flexible frame if in the end the frame will care only one final configuration? The specific and non- flexible frame will be better anyhow, I hope we all agree with it…

Also, it is about a lifestyle. I do not know in what British castle you live but my experience with all folks who go for large multi-sell, including my own, indicate that soon of later they all move to larger listening rooms. I think it is some kind of virus….

So, I would advise to not be in hurry. Build the bone – the MF and Upperbass. Do not do any tweeters or and any ridicules Injection channel. Put your MF and Upperbass “on the books”, ad some LF and play them as is for a few months. Set the crossovers, find an amp that you like, discover Bruckner, get married and bring your company to public offering. Then play with tweeters while your pregnant wife is searching for new a house where your new twins and your new horns would live in peace and harmony. Then, having a larger room with having own experience, own expectation and own reference (instead of following the idiots online) your will compliment your playback with right final frame and with the rest channels that you might or might not find necessary.

Rakesh, I know that internet audio people are looking for specific recommendations formed in inchers, decibels and brands.  I assure you that audio is not only about technologies but also about self-discovery of moments of realization. From what I know about audio the upperbass channel and MF channel that you looks like will built will be phenomenal music exploration devises, good enough to last most likely to the rest of your life. The rest that audio that you plan I think will be variable.  I do understand that you have a tendency to get all together right the way. You most likely not a teenager, so tell me how much “all together right the way” have worked in other aspect of your life?

oxric wrote:

My mistake. I should not use the term Lecleach on this site.

There is absolutely nothing prohibitive in Lecleach profile, it works very nice for HF but the La profile shall not be used in cases where vertical clearance is critical. Guess what? Anyone who do not stick a single Fostex in a horn and call it an acoustic system but instead go multi-channel, any single person have vertical challenge. Even if you have 50 feet ceiling then you still would want to keep your stuck of horns lower and closer to each other.

oxric wrote:

In any case, I wanted to say Fundamental Channel and not Injection channel.

OK, if does make more sense. Your mentioning of horn loaded Injection channel that you “desisted” before having the playback up did sound a bit foolish.

oxric wrote:

And yes I'm perfectly aware of the vertical problems of having Lecleach profiles with a multi-way system and none of the horns I have ordered are LeCleach - they are all tractrix. I did some comparisons with the S2 in a Lecleach horn whilst a friend was here a few months ago. It was not a'kosher' comparison' but I personally preferred the LeCleach even though admittedly the horns from someone in Australia were not how I would have built them. It would be fair to say that my friend who likes the LeCleach felt the 400Hz tractrix combined better with his Fane in a Stereolab 140Hz upperbass horn. But all of this is really not pertinent to the subject of my post really as I doubt I will be able to accomodate Lecleach profiles and would only like to do these comparisons much later on for the sake of my own education.

When you say that your preferred the LeCleach over tractrix then can you elaborate what specifically your preference were based upon?

oxric wrote:

There are only two points that you make here. Since I don't know what configuration I will end up with, I should not worry and waste my energies designing and building a frame for now. I do not agree. The frame is as you say part and parcel of the final system and given that it is multi-way, one needs to at least be able to set up and position three channels relative to each other in the vertical and horizontal plane. Your method of simply fixing the MF atop the upperbass horn which is what I would have to do would make it close to impossible for me to change the spacing between these two channels other than in a very rough and ready fashion. A flexible frame even if I should eventually replace it with a better fixed one (I do not see any compelling reason why I should do this even if my 'flexible' frame is not the optimum solution) is better than no frame at all.

Ok, I would not disagree and do not insist in anything. I just bring my own example- if I design my frame today then it would be slightly different then what I have done in 2006.

oxric wrote:

clinches this argument for me is that I need to find the correct location for these horns in a fairly large room (it is 6mx7m albeit with ceiling height of 2.35m and with a beam going across). I can try to locate the horns across four walls. There is no way that I will be able to easily try these different solutions without an easy means of moving these bulky/heavy horns. What better way than having a frame on wheels?

I was under impression that you do know where you will be positioning your horns. Did you have a playback, any playback, in your listening room before? If yeas then you shell know your room sonically.

oxric wrote:

My question was a fairly generic one regarding the location of especially the Upperbass and MF channels with respect to each other. I mentioned this question here as someone may have had a thought or two based on personal experience which might have been a good starting point for locating the supporting rods in the main mast. I fully intend to work it out for myself so maybe the question was redundant anyway.

There is no definitive answers to it. I use visual clearance from listening position. As long as I can see from my listening position the bottom edge of the MF horn I consider that the clearance is set. How different would it be if it was not “just clearance” but 4.75cm of clearance I do not know.

oxric wrote:

I do not know Romy. I do not know where I will go after living with the Upperbass/MF/LF solution for a year or longer. Maybe just add a tweeter and enjoy my music collection or go to more concerts with my family as the children grow up. That could just be good enough for me. Whatever it is, and I do not think I know any more than I do, it will not be just 'variable' I hope.

Romy the Cat wrote:

oxric wrote: And yes I'm perfectly aware of the vertical problems of having Lecleach profiles with a multi-way system and none of the horns I have ordered are LeCleach - they are all tractrix. I did some comparisons with the S2 in a Lecleach horn whilst a friend was here a few months ago. It was not a'kosher' comparison' but I personally preferred the LeCleach even though admittedly the horns from someone in Australia were not how I would have built them. It would be fair to say that my friend who likes the LeCleach felt the 400Hz tractrix combined better with his Fane in a Stereolab 140Hz upperbass horn. But all of this is really not pertinent to the subject of my post really as I doubt I will be able to accomodate Lecleach profiles and would only like to do these comparisons much later on for the sake of my own education. When you say that your preferred the LeCleach over tractrix then can you elaborate what specifically your preference were based upon?

The first time I listened to the S2 I was shocked by how bad they sounded, and could not be sure which I hated more, the nasal sound of the S2 or the honkiness which at the time I thought derived from the horns they were in. After this, I listened to them when I got to try them on the 400Hz Azura horn LeCleach and the Stereolab tractrix quite a few months ago and the rest of the system was such a mishmash of unlikely partners that I am not too sure my comments are worth taking too seriously at all. The amp was the Almarro 318A or 318B. We had 6-7 S2s here, some of them clearly had problems and were unlistenable but one or two of these gave us what I would now call the idiosyncratic S2 sound. Although the S2 crossed at 500Hz sounded good lower down, I would say what appealed most to me was its lack of distortion, transient speed and detail above. It was something that I thought only electrostatic speakers could achieve but the S2 put the life back into the proceedings and I did not know at the time whether to characterise it as some form of coloration or just having more tone than anything that I had heard until then. It could be for any number of reasons, but the LeCleach Azurahorn crossed high with a 3uF capacitor sounded more natural, with maybe less of the nasal character which I still could detect  underneath it all as some aftertaste of cheese that stays in your mouth long after you have had it . What is even more confusing is that I have now been told by Mike of Vitavox that some of my diaphragms were clearly not original Vitavox issue. Later on, I had a chance to listen to the S2 with plastic surrounds diaphragms in a single 400Hz Stereolab tractrix with the Fane 8Ms in a 140Hz Stereolab Uperbass horn. It is this memory that has convinced me most of the potential of the S2s but on that occasion we did not have the Azurahorn to hand. With regard to the construction of the Azurahorns, there are several reasons why I do not think they are ideal in terms of their construction. They ring quite badly, they are very light and they have a very glossy finish...My Musique Concrete 322Hz Lecleach by Marco Henri are considerably more promising... My horns once they are ready will be delivered to my place in France. I would like to take the Musique Concrete there and listen to these alongside the new tractrix horns, once I manage to buy, borrow or steal some suitable amps. I have over the course of the past two years sold all my amplifiers(other than some old Sony V-fet amps) including my battery powered Audio Consulting only two weeks ago...

With regard to the new listening room in France, I have of course never used it for listening to music as I have only moved there two months ago and most of my equipment is still here in the UK. The children’s toys, my wife’s clothes and some items of furniture had to take precedence when we moved believe it or not.

Best regards
Rakesh