|
|
Romy the Cat
Boston, MA
Posts 10,156
Joined on 05-28-2004
|
Post #:
|
25
|
|
Post ID:
|
20495
|
|
Reply to:
|
20494
|
|
|
|
|
|
fiogf49gjkf0d  Romy the Cat wrote: |
 haralanov wrote: | | Just a short example: the horns with round mouth have the worst possible performance in terms of sound complexity and they are champions in achieving the so called “open, but closed within itself” type of sound, where the sound is perceived as it is a hostage close to the bottom of the horn, trapped inside (but still energetic and "jumpy"), not "breathing" freely in the air. This effect is greatly reduced when for example the horn has oval shape (or even better – complex, “brain acceptable” shape), especially when the width/height ratio of the elliptic contour is the correct one. Who defines what is the correct ratio? – it is the one who builds many different horns and then uses his ears to select the best performing among them. All the people who performed a lot of experiments know that for achieving a good realistic imaging – the MF horns should be shorter in the direction of the other L or R channel, compared to the direction toward walls |
|
Perhaps you are correct, I do not know, I did not deal with it. A few years back you were a strong proponent of single-drive speaker and clearly denied any horns. You had a lot of strong and confident reasons behind it. Nowadays you look like accepted horn topology and claim advanced practice with elliptic contour. You might or might not have any practical background behind of what you say. It is internet and everyone can say anything. Post the configuration of your elliptic installation, explain reason behind it and demonstrate your ability to answer question. That, my friend, is not just internet blabbering but the actual knowledge sharing. |
|
I would like to extend my comments about the elliptic contour. In the haralanov’s comment above he claims advantages of elliptic contour and it is a valid point. An elliptic contour has all advantages of clerical horns, namely minimization of parallel surfaces and at the same time it allows to be piled up much more compact that is a huge advantage. The complexity to manufacture elliptic horns and absence of any credible research or serious practical public attempts is an unfortunate bitch for the elliptic contour. The straight conical horns sometimes work and sometimes not, go figure why and when. The Tratrix or La-profile work all time with no exception and the behavior is completely predictable. Does it make Tratrix “better”? Of course not but I do not think that anybody who read this site is care about “better without context”.
Now is the interesting subject. Haralanov claims that there is some kind of pattern that relates width/height ratio of the elliptic contour with the wall of the listening room and that it reportedly serves some kind of benefit. Do not make my sarcastic tone to deceive you. The claim is very serious and in a way intelligent, particularly in theoretical sense.
Let me to expend a bit about on the subject.
In contrary to common believe horns do tale to the wall and to listening room, partially by re-entry, partially by defraction and partially by other means. The depth of the “talk” is vary by size of the horns, the type of the horns, by loading protocol, by proximity of crossovers to the horn rate and by many other subjects. Would I acknowledge that the not the size by proportion of any give horn make any difference in context of a given listening room. Nope, I do not think that it is practically important. I do not say that it makes no difference but I absolutely insist that under normal circumstances it is negligible.
Why?
It is negligible become in a sensible and properly performing 5-6 channel horn loading installation there is enough complexity and enough variables that mask the horn proportion idiosyncrasy very deep, well behind any sensible detection. At least it is what I feel.
Also, it is time and in context of haralanov’s claims I do not find the claim credible. No disrespect to haralanov but unfortunately it takese time. For a person, even as intersegment and dedicated as haralanov is it would take couple years to assemble and the most important to understand the essence of proper multi-channel horn loading. It not that it hard to understand but it takes time to live with sound and understand what this sound means and how with the given topology to manage/navigate sound in the way how you want. I do not believe that anything can do it with the way… it come with years.
So, how much person has to have a familiarity with horns (proper horns) in order to be able to hear an installation and be able to identify by hearing that the given horn might image better of it was 5” linger on one side and 8” shorter on another? Well, I would estimate that it would take 10 years of constant training own hearing with context of a VERY-VERY serious installation. I do not have this experience, neither anybody who I know does, not to mention that I do not know anybody who use Elliptic horns for more than 2ch very simplistic playback.
Rgs, Romy the Cat
"I wish I could score everything for horns." - Richard Wagner. "Our writing equipment takes part in the forming of our thoughts." - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
|