de charlus wrote:

My proposal was to more or less combine the drivers from said systems in a single system, structurally similar to the Cessaro Gamma

I would like to point out that copying or not copying Macondo is kind of irrelevant. With proper assessment techniques any person who experiment with horn-loaded multi-channel pile of the horns would end up with the very same configuration – nothing else works.  I discovered and formulated Macondo topology but claim any invention of it would be stupid. The whole idea behind the Macondo after I discovered that does work was to share it and to advance the horn thinking out there. I know I did it.

It you would like to learn more about Macondo then you might read the Macondo page.

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/MacondoAcousticSystem.aspx

… that gives the historic parley into how it was. The core of Macondo destine is 4” throat on upperbass driver. I know that it sounds contra-intuitive but everything in Macondo derives from it. If I know nothing about Macondo and if you ask me to draw the most likely design for multi-channel pile of the horns where 4” upperbass is used then I would end up with identical to Macondo design. Charlus looks like have his hard set on Vitavox AK151 for Upper bass – this is very different driver and it will not work in Macondo- like topology. I personally feel that AK151 is more interesting driver for upperbass religion than hat I use in Macondo but I do challenge  Charlus or anybody to come up with interesting upperbass channels that would host this driver. You see to make upperbass channel is very intricate as it is not only about sound but about make other categories.  I would love to use this driver for upperbass but I do not know how if you do them God bless you. The way how Vox Olympian use it might produce good sound but I do not like esthetics – I wanted the pile of identical radial horns of different size. – I do not want to have boxes mixed with horns.   You might feel different but it will be your speaker not mind.

You would not need any tools beside of very basic and very simple RTA, feel free to buy whatever else you wish but it would be unnecessary.

Yes, for sure the building the horns themselves you need to outsource.  It might be Jeffrey Jackson (very good souse) or some if yours more local guys but keep your design decisions belong yourself. Your horns makers shell not drive your specification – you have to do it. If the horn builder do not want to work under control of your requirements and insist to design for you’re an entire system then fire the horn builder. You will be surprised to learn that the more experienced in general audio the horn builders are the more accommodating they will be. BTW, posting here Jorge has in his disposal a horn-building shop and I know that he had built some custom horns. You might chat with his about what he might offer.

I think that if you willing to dive into this project then you need to find out what upperbass you will be pursuing. This is very fundamentally-important as everything else will be deriving from it. If you like the Vox Olympian upperbass then it might be very possible to meet with gentleman who is behind the Olympian to purposefully listening just the Olympian upperbass. With and without other channels and conclude for yourself that it is what you want.  I do not know the guy but generally I know that if you will be able to shape your inquiry in dignified and intelligent format then no one will refuse to help you.  I am sure that if you sight some kind non-compete agreement and buy to the guy as box of Dom Pérignon then he would help you. Do not treat anybody experience as some kind of fixed entity – you very much might improve upon what Olympian upperbass does….

We understand that Charlus’ selection of drivers are not a selection yet but some kind of very preliminary idea of the drivers that he feels like he like. I said “he feels like he like” not accidently. I do not think Charlus, or anybody else in his place, would be able to evaluate the worth of the drivers in context of overall sound of somebody else installation. It is possible to do but only if you have a lot of experience with application of the specific driver, then listening the driver in context of alien installation it is possible to recognize it’s signature and to decipher how it was used. As I understand Charlus is not familiar with the drivers he picked and he was talking about them only because the systems that he liked used those drivers. Here is an interesting twist of the story: I can give you 95% that of the system owners of the installation that he liked did replace some of the drivers that Charlus mentioned (and made the needed adjustments of the systems) then… Charlus might still love the sound of those installations.

Anyhow, as few comments about the Charlus drivers.

de charlus wrote:

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

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/Forums/ShowPost.aspx?PageIndex=1&postID=7213#7213

Saying all of it I have to admit that to have a midbass horn around Ale Acoustics 160 is very interesting idea. It is VERY hard to make it properly as Ale bass drivers are not suitable for proper midbass application, or at least it is very very hard.

de charlus wrote:

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

de charlus wrote:

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

de charlus wrote:

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

de charlus wrote:

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

First of all this is not a post about somebody replicated Macondo. I use the colloquialism: “Building Macondo” as a reference to building any “end of the life” acoustic system. Building the proverbial Macondo, going multi-ampling , arranging power, cables, frond-end and  the rest components of the inhalation for the most case would constitute a life time achievement. Not because it is terribly difficult but because sane people do it mostly once a life. Well, this brings a very important from my point of view but much neglected question: what worth of this activity?

I would not hide from you that fact that build good audio is wickedly fascinating ceremony and it might sponge in all your time, energy and attention. During the design and construction of Melquiades I took a few months off (!) and good 16 hours a day was experimenting with amplification. Not that it is right or wrong but at $100 per hour that I bill I am sure that I have invested into Melquiades more money than all Mass high-end stores would ever charge to buy amps.

So, approaching the project that de Charlus implies I would strongly encourage defining to yourself: how much would it worthy for you to have the proverbial Macondo installation? It is not easy question and in most of the cases the person in begin and in the end of proverbial Macondo processes would have very different assessment scale and very different reference points.

Generally is much, much, much, much more advisable to buy instead of build…. If you know “where” and if you know “how”…. The people with brain and years understand that glossy  public “critically acclaimed”  audio is crap, but unfortunately many “alternative” audio branches crap as well. Navigation in the realms of audio opportunities is very complex and even people with a lot of money are at lost if they have brain and ears. Build sounds like a logical solution but the people with lot of money have money because they are very good in what they do. I assure that is audio was not the occupation why they do well…

So, before to dive in an expensive and demanding audio project ask yourself if you do want to get another full or part time job – to become your own audio designer, reviewer, tester and etc.  You might like it but you might also find that golf or boating is more interesting for you. To a degree, like anything else, to do audio seriously require some sacrifice. How much sacrifices will you willing to invest.  Will you be able to check and balance your audio investments, sacrifices and justifications? They are not bogus questions and I do recommend anybody who jump from  TV speaker bar to the proverbial Macondo projects to boil the thoughts in own head.

When many of your will experiment with building and listening your own horns and spend countless amount of time by sketching a configuration of your new horn assembly you then might come to an observation that Macondo Upperbass topology is very slick solution that is very hard to beat sonically and practically impossible topologically.  He key to everything is 4” throat that this upperbass horn has. The whole idea of Macondo is based upon that 4” throat.

If you go for larger driver, let say 12 or 15 inch then you can’t not use 4” throat as the compression will damage the small sounds. So, you do it then you end up with let say 6”- 10” throat. However the size of the Upperbass mouth is restricted by elevation of your MF driver that has to be more or less at easy level. If the bottom of your MF horn will be higher then let say 40” then whatever Haralanov’s “gravity” you will be using you will be forced to  till your head up to listen your installation. It is acceptable to a minor degree but only to minor degree. So, let presume that we have even an elliptical horn and small MF then we have let say 45” space for Upperbass that would make a nice 90Hz-100Hz horn. It would go bigger, to let say 85Hz, if you do non-spherical, if you like how they looks like. So, now we have a big mouth under your MF channel but the problem is that this big mouth projected to the big throat does not give to you necessary LF horn equalization. With 38” mouth that Macondo has and 4” throat the upperbass has 9.5 time size difference between throat and mouth. If you use let say a moderate 8” throat with 12” or 15” driver then in order to get the same equalization you would need 76” mouth for your upperbass. For sure you have no room to use that mouth and what everyone does is making mouth smaller, therefore reducing the horn LF equalization. As the result the LF does not produced as much by horn but rather produced by exertion of LF driver. Which is called a direct radiator operation: the picture does look like a horn but the horn equalization in such a horn is very inadequate.

On another side of spectra we can arm the Upperbass with super duper compression drivers from GOTO, ALE, YL Acoustic, Kondo or whatever else exotic it might be. They do spectacular compression drivers that have 70-80 Hz own resonance frequency. They do not have barbaric compression, they have phenomenal diaphragms and suspension, high sensitivity, and for all intended purpose they are the best in the game for this application. Let look for instance this driver:

http://www.hifido.co.jp/KWALE/G0205/P0/A10/E/0-10/S0/C12-70209-62522-00/

It is perfect and it costs near what it has to cost. The problem is that is has somewhere near 2.5” throat that would require not 38” long horn (now I am taking not about diameter but length from mouth to throat) but rather 2 -3 times longer. It would be superbly impractical to have 70-80” long straight horn and it would be absolutely impossible to time alight it. So, what people do is shorting the horn and doing for 1/8 or 1/16 of horns and running some VERY fast opening profiles.  This is not good as all those  GOTO, ALE, YL Acoustic, Kondo and other drivers are made to be load to very slow opening exponential horn and the do need a very strong throat reactance.

So, what I am saying is that 4” throat that Macondo has is a very intelligent balance between everything: esthetics, sound, system organization, configuration option and many other reasons.

de Charlus, I still do not think that there is such a thing as “ the only a theoretical starting point”. Perhaps you were inspired by Jeffrey’s recommendation that has more experience in it then you. Still, the compression drivers loaded into given horn exhibit sometime very peculiar behavior and to have a specific aim of where the channel will be operating is not always possible.  I still feel that idea to use plan 15-100 Hz channels from beginning of project is faulty. I also feel that use S2 between 500-2000hz is kind of problematic. The S2 driver has a secondary resonance at 1250 Hz with a good 8dB bulge, how will you deal with it in 250hz horn? Will you use a notch filtration? That will kill the whole S2 sound.  Still, this is your project and you very much free to do whatever you wish. 

The reasons why I used word “ballet” in the subject of the post because the section of crossover points leads to the selection of the horns side.  Ironically you would never know the final crossover points unit you put the drivers into the horns and put the horns together. This is the chicken and egg story… That is why I advised to start from upperbass and MF and THAN expend the system. You might make a MF horn with interchangeable back plate init winch you will be able to screw any driver with any throat with no damage to horn geometry. Jeffrey is a resourceful fellow and he will be able to advise to you options, if not then I can pitch the ways how I did it.

An invitation to listen to Macondo system is not a problem and I have no idea why my marriage (as somebody advised) might affect my audio interests.  You might enjoy result of the listening but I do not think that you will advance yourself in your project by listening my installation.  Jeffrey with his experience would rather get the idea of what I do if he hears Macondo. I think you might get better feeling about Macondo sound AFTER you finish your project and spend some time with your playback. Nevertheless, if you or Jeffrey feel that you need either Macondo or my assistance then we would be happy to facilitate it.

de charlus wrote:

Romy, do you have first hand listening experience of these YL drivers? If so, in what sort of installation?

Nope, I did hear neither YL drivers nor ALE driver, as least consciousnessly.

de charlus wrote:

Doubtless you will refer me to an extant thread, but how is it that you dealt with the S2's secondary resonance?

Yes, there was information about it in S2 thread. Basically I begin to role the S2 driver from 3.8kH and at 1000Hz it arrives flat, including the secondary resonance. It has been explained in details. In your case, since you are planning to use the Vitavox S2 at 500-2000hz it will not be too useful.  You will need to use custom resonators that will, in my estimation, ruin sound even those they will flatten the frequency response. If you insist to do what you are planning to do then I would advise to find old Vitavox diaphragms with metal suspension. The drivers with those diaphragms do not have such a hard secondary resonance and they might be more or less be used flat. The problem with those diaphragms that they are very harsh upper region …but you will not use them in there as you will be having ALE driver taken over at 2000Hz.

de charlus wrote:

It would seem that Jeffrey errs on the side of building DSETs from the ground up; I do see the many virtues that this route offers, but I had previously thought it a good deal simpler, and possibly cheaper, to buy commercial SETs and modify them as necessary. Have you ever costed out a Melquiades, Romy, in terms solely of materials and the labor involved in construction of a unit? Call me a heretic, but I like the GM-70 tube best of all those that I have thus far encountered in the SET topology - and I am the first to admit that these encounters have been far from exhaustive; that which forms the basis of the Melquiades, for instance, remains obscure to me - and cannot imagine that a custom SET employing that tube would differ radically in price from one using the 6C33C. Given that I shall be needing 10 of these, price must be considered.

I seriously do not feel that you near anywhere to start to think about amplification for your projects. I love to run my mouth on audio subject but to discuss the amplification need for the project you are planning at the state you are is truly pointless. Have one SET amp of 8-12W that you like and run from it the whole system with passive filtration. As the additional benefits you will be able to play with channels loading in this configuration. Going DSET in smart was is way more complicated and I very strongly advise you for now to stay away from it. Jeffrey does make a mistake feeling that he can at this point to force what amplification you would need. BTW, GM-70 is very fine tube but this tube is to drive 92dB sensitive direct radiator. What will you do with your 110 sensitive acoustic system and 30W? As you have an  acoustic system that will be able to react very “nuancely” to very delicate minimal currents you might find that very low power vintage triodes are more interesting then the “elephant touch” of high voltage GM-70. Melquiades is not expensive, neither in parts or build but I do not think that you need o be attracted to it. If I had your (proposed) set of the channels (with obvious exception of Lower Bass channel) then I would be looking for some kind of DH DSET with probably GM-70 on the AK151 driver (wich I am sure you will be driving lowers then 100Hz).

de charlus wrote:

Ok, understood, at least somewhat. Are you suggesting that the S2 operates at the frequencies between 1000hz and 3.6khz? I am not insisting upon using the driver at the frequencies that I was initially suggesting; far from it, actually, as these were simply a hypothetical starting point with the purpose of eliciting the sort of information that you are so ably providing. I am not insisting on anything aside from excellent (at least, from my perception) results from a 5-way, largely spherical horn configuration, since it is this topology that has challenged my long-held cynicism about the capabilities of "high-end" audio. That this has already turned out to be so much more involved than I had at first thought is far from disappointing, as a matter of fact.

de charlus wrote:

Yes, the issue of amplification is premature, to say the least, but it resulted from a conversation that Jeffery and I had been having. It had always been my intention to obtain 5 pairs of commercial SETs (to me, it has always been the loudspeaker that has been the most inherently disappointing element in the audio chain, although each element has its bugbears) such as Lamm ML2s or Shindo Labs Lafons to power the drivers, but Jeffrey seems to favor the custom route, and you seem to have arrived at superior results through your own efforts. Any route other than this appears to be the very Pandora's box that might result in the "years of refinements" that so may on this thread have cautioned against, but that in itself does not deter me. Ultimately though, however long this takes and however costly it might be, I want to do this only once, sh to learn as much as possible in so doing, and wish to be content with the results for the rest of my life - this is how invested I am in this process.

de charlus wrote:

Alas, I am too young to have that whole "Mirrorphonics nostalgia" coloring my taste in sound reproduction - still, this is not to say that it cannot be investigated.

de charlus wrote:

As for the amplification issue, I take your point; at this stage too many variables have yet to be fixed to render such discussion productive.

de charlus wrote:

Have you, or anyone else on this site, had experience with such things as "double throat adapters"? Goto offer such to marry with their SG146 bass drivers, and if there are no inherent difficulties arising from such a configuration, it would be nice if the bass horns in this installation were not positively gargantuan.

de charlus wrote:

In short, the driver units I allude to above are the best I have heard within their frequency ranges