Well, never say never and what I said that the Injection Channel is done it meant that it WAS done.

I am experimenting now with other way of use Red injection. The application as is at the picture practically had no impact to imaging. However, I needed some Red’s lower midrange that I have no space to develop….So I used the boxed Injection Channel about the Macondo running juts Red Woofer along with the tweeter sitting above the “Water Drop”… Without setting up and aligning everything precisely, preliminary, I kind of like it.

However, it becomes to appear to me too certifiable, not the THX certifiable…

jessie.dazzle wrote:

So if I understand correctly, you are still using both elements of the Red, but have separated them, and now have the HF element as shown in the above photo, and the woofer is still in the large box (still sitting up on top?), and filtered to simulate the smaller box. And, by separating the elements, you are able to get the HF element in there where it does less damage to imaging... Was that your motivation in um, liberating the HF element? Where in terms of frequency do you want the additional tone? Would it be enough to inject this tone in the Upper-Bass and Lower Mid-Range, or are you also looking to add it up in the S2 range as well? At what frequency range do you have the HF element of the Red functioning? (where is it high-passed or band-passed?). I assume it is emitting frequencies lower than the Water Drop.

Yes, they are as you described. My motivation was to bring the Red’s tweeter as close as possible to the sours of HF of the entire system. You see, to have 2 sources of HF, even in the vertical plane prone to many problems. The problems might be minimized theoretically but it is VERY complex and I do not think that it is possible in my specific conditions (distance and so on). Sure, one of my sources is at 9dB down but it still has SOME negative effect to imaging, though very positive to tone. A slight rolling off HF on Red help a little but it requires in order to get the same effect of “Injection” to increased the output for Red’s tweeter – it is not good as it move the entire virtual center point image up.

The to locate the Red’s tweeter as it on the picture above helps but I really have no space in there as the frame (the high of the Fundamental channel horn) had fixed for S2-WaterDrop-S2 trio. Also, the Injection of the Red between the Water Drop and upper S2 as I have done is not free from problems. The damn Red tweeter when it sits outside of his woofer and is not driven by own crossover sounds much cleaner and has less coloration. However, I do not it its clean sound - I need to use only it’s colorations! So it makes me to crank it up but it is not what I would like to do…. I do not think that I will keep it next to WD  – too complex, better for imaging from one point of view but questionable from other point of view. With all things being equal I feel that the high-passed Red in own full assembly is more useful for the Injection… but it is too damn bid and good only to sit above the Macondo.Perhaps I shell leave it there….

Still, the biggest problem is that I hardly can say anything defiantly. Since the temperature is risen in Boston and everyone turned the Air Conditioners on the electricity went bad. For the last 2 weeks audio is hardly listenable and I would like do not make any decisions in this state. Some days it is so bad that I juts turn the playback off in order do not get irritated…

jessie.dazzle wrote:

However, I must say, I have a lot of trouble accepting the idea of redundant drivers.

Yes, it dose not sound attractive to me but it is not the redundant drivers but one main driver and another at minus 9dB driver, sort of the “colorizing driver”. It dos not really emits own sound but rather slightly tone up the main driver. It is hard to believe but if you sit in my room it would be easily demonstrateable….

jessie.dazzle wrote:

Do you really feel that it would be desirable to inject tone up in the range where you have the S2s working?

It is NOT necessary but it is beneficial. I started to do it bit because the S2 deficiencies but become the certain Red’s tonal inflections that I do fount appealing (in a small well quantifiable doze)

jessie.dazzle wrote:

My own Mid-Range arrangement is based on that of the Macondos... Listening to my own system (I have enough of it done now to make some observations), I can say that there are two elements which bring significant tone to the overall perception: 1) The AK151 Mid-Bass drivers, even without horns.

Absolutely phenomenal driver, nothing can touch it!!! If you corner-load it in a right room you will have the upperbass that will be EXTREMELY difficult to beat. Sure they you would need to time alight it with the rest of the system that should not be in the corner.

jessie.dazzle wrote:

2) The pair of 18" Lower-Bass drivers in sealed boxes (a sort of effortless bass with very good tone... A nice surprise, as I had to buy them without having heard what they could do).

Hm, the “tone” subject in context of the lower octave is VERY different subject …

jessie.dazzle wrote:

Obviously, neither of these directly add tone anywhere higher up than Upper-Bass... Nevertheless, they may be affecting the way the S2s channels are "perceived". In my case, I don't feel that the S2s would benefit from more tone. However, if I could hear your experiment, I may change my mind.

You can’t not imagine how good the S2 with AK151 if they properly used (room). I keep some of them in my storage and I would LOVE to found some use for them….

jessie.dazzle wrote:

What diaphragms did you finally settle for use with your S2s... Plastic or metal suspension?

It never changed. For MF I use the plastic suspension and for Fundamental Channel the metal (wich is not critical)

jessie.dazzle wrote:

What diaphragms did you finally settle for use with your S2s... Plastic or metal suspension?

               Reply from Romy : 
               "It never changed. For MF I use the plastic suspension and for Fundamental Channel the metal (wich is not critical)"

You did at one point (circa early 2005) prefer the metal suspension for MF :

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/GetPost.aspx?PostID=871

               Quote from Romy - Early 2005:
               "I have now my S2 running with the original diaphragms in the very same way in which it was made 55 years aback: I have no HF harshness at all"

Reading your thoughts on the two suspensions at that time leads me to wonder if the plastic suspension is not stealing away some of the tone?

Regarding Eugene :

The reference to Eugene and his ax came to mind upon seeing the disemboweled Red driver. This will "enlighten" you as to who he is... Mind you, it is not at all the sort of thing I usually have playing... But it is what was around while growing up... sometimes I do take a trip back :

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4488671888968650349

BTW, As I do sometimes listen to music other than classical and jazz, before getting this far along with the project, I was REALLY curious about how a Vitavox/Horns/SET amps system would do with this other music... Answer : Wow, nice... even with electronic "music".

jd*

jessie.dazzle wrote:

You did at one point (circa early 2005) prefer the metal suspension for MF : http://www.goodsoundclub.com/GetPost.aspx?PostID=871                Quote from Romy - Early 2005:                "I have now my S2 running with the original diaphragms in the very same way in which it was made 55 years aback: I have no HF harshness at all"

Jessie, my site is not a collection of “audio wisdom” but rather a diary of an audio psycho, sort of a chronicle of my adventures in audio. We all and certainly I do make moves into wrong direction, or in less productive direction, not to mention the very stupid directions. It happens here, my site reflects it (like my attempts to use tweeter attenuation with moving the tweeter on the slope and a few others….) and I have no problems to admit it. When I discover or realize about my wrong or not fruitful moves I always publish the follow-ups but never delete or edit the older posts.

There were a periods (and not ounces) when I felt that my use of the original diaphragms was warranted. I do not feel that it was stupid but conditional – slightly discharges drivers, a good electricity, a certain use (or do not use) of tweeter. Then I found some justifications do not use original diaphragms. It is all about the relationship between the conditions and the results. The top end of the original diaphragms does much better with soft magnets (I have S2 with different magnets), in fact the best with electromagnet. When electricity is very good the original metal diaphragms do extremely well but as soon electricity has a very little nose the metal diaphragms begin to sound very nasty.  The plastic suspension is much more “liquid” and less sensitive to electricity. So, what I said that “It never changed” I meant that it never changed since my last findings and I have for a couple years the plastic suspension in my MF channel…
 
http://www.GoodSoundClub.com/GetPost.aspx?PostID=878 

http://www.GoodSoundClub.com/GetPost.aspx?PostID=937

http://www.GoodSoundClub.com/GetPost.aspx?PostID=948

http://www.GoodSoundClub.com/GetPost.aspx?PostID=1253

http://www.GoodSoundClub.com/GetPost.aspx?PostID=1344

Saying it, I very much might try to use the metal suspension again when I will be driving the MF with a single-stage Milq, direct coupled or ater I try the Duddanization of the cone. The single-stage Milq should be “a cleaner electronics” and it should be advantageous....

jessie.dazzle wrote:

Reading your thoughts on the two suspensions at that time leads me to wonder if the plastic suspension is not stealing away some of the tone?

Very reasonable question. However, the difference between the plastic suspension and metal suspension (BTW, I have 2 different version of plastic suspension) is not in tone at least not in the tone that makes the S2 different from Red. We are approaching the moment when it is difficult to describe the things and it should be experienced. Since you already do have the S2 driver then buy from Mike one single plastic suspension cone and try it next you original cones. If you have only plastic suspension then I do encourage you to find the original cone. If you can’t then I might send you one to try. When you play both of them then you might understand why I went back and forth with the cones in past and perhaps will do it again in future perhaps. I still do not feel that it is not “tone” that drives me.

Romy the Cat wrote:

This position is near flawless what the Red run at minus 9dB.

Regarding the diary of an Audio Psycho :

"Jessie, my site is not a collection of “audio wisdom” but rather a diary of an audio psycho..."

Yes, and I can't wait for the film! I heard that Vladimir Lamm, Michael Fremer, and even Magnetar will be making appearances... I heard John Atkinson is being consulted by the editing director... There is supposed to be quite a hot scene involving an adolescent camel... I just can't wait!

Seriously though, I do understand.

"We all and certainly I do make moves into wrong direction, or in less productive direction, not to mention the very stupid directions. It happens here, my site reflects it (like my attempts to use tweeter attenuation with moving the tweeter on the slope and a few others….)"

I need to go back and re-read your posts on the subject, as I don't recall why you concluded that it is an error to high-pass the tweeter such that the listener only perceives the lower part of the slope (if that's what you mean when you say when you write "with moving the tweeter on the slope" ... this seems a very effective means of achieving attenuation without resorting to various barbarian devices... In fact, I currently (stupidly?) have my tweeters high-passed at something like 16KHz first order.

"When I discover or realize about my wrong or not fruitful moves I always publish the follow-ups but never delete or edit the older posts."

Yes, please continue this practice ; I am certain that I am not alone when I say that it has contributed enormously to my understanding (to say nothing of the time it has saved).

"...I very much might try to use the metal suspension again when I will be driving the MF with a single-stage Milq, direct coupled or ater I try the Duddanization of the cone. The single-stage Milq should be “a cleaner electronics” and it should be advantageous...."

What do you mean by "the Duddanization of the cone"... I would guess you are referring to damping the cone via some sort of coating (saliva from your pregnant adolescent camel... You do realize she has been pregnant for a very long time...)

"...Since you already do have the S2 driver then buy from Mike one single plastic suspension cone and try it next you original cones..."

My S2s have metal diaphragms... In fact, I did not realize that it was still possible to buy the diaphragms with plastic suspension (???).

Thank you for your offer to lend me a diaphragm... It would seem best that I try to buy the diaphragms that I don't have (plastic suspension)... If I heard the plastic suspension in my system, and liked it, but then could not buy a pair, I might just become and Audio Psycho...

jd*

jessie.dazzle wrote:

Your latest post got me thinking in a sort of incomplete way about how you might locate the injection channel... If you consider tone as a harmonic of the original source, then (depending on the order of harmonic) it may in fact not be correct to attempt reducing the proximity between the point of origin for your tone generating channel and that of your main channels? This might or might not be correct... Like I said, I am just thinking out loud here, but have you tried intentionally disassociating the Injection Channels (completely) from the Macondos (both in location as well as direction of projection)?

It is exactly how I fell now and why I posted that post. I do not need the Injection Channel as a sound source but rather as source of semi-ambient noise. What I do not need is a directivity as any Red directivity introduces lobbing and all sort of other problems.

jessie.dazzle wrote:

I need to go back and re-read your posts on the subject, as I don't recall why you concluded that it is an error to high-pass the tweeter such that the listener only perceives the lower part of the slope (if that's what you mean when you say when you write "with moving the tweeter on the slope" ... this seems a very effective means of achieving attenuation without resorting to various barbarian devices... In fact, I currently (stupidly?) have my tweeters high-passed at something like 16KHz first order.

http://www.GoodSoundClub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=1525

http://www.GoodSoundClub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=2790

Romy the Cat wrote:

So, I took my time and moved around the Red tweeter, here and there, in different application… I do not know…. Whatever I did and wherever I placed it does screw up sound in one way or other. Turning channel off, setting it in geometric shadow of other horn works very nice but request to add more output to the Injection Channel that made other problems and still even if I accept them it greatly reduces the effect of the Injection.

Eventually I figured out that my initial idea to keep it in vertical plane above the Macondo was not as bad after all. It does crew up imaging is some way and does introduces some special dirt but it screws the thing up in the most tolerable way. So, I will stick with my original plan and will build a small box above Macondo and use a smaller version of Tannoy 10” Red.

Does is worth it? Well, think about it: I do perfectly recognize the negative consequences of Injection Channel but still wiling to use it.

It was exactly how as I imagined - the Injection Channel worked very-very well. The electricity was good, close to wonderful. I calibrated everything and decided to spend a few hours just listening some tonally complex things. The Injection Channel made the think a freaky in a way. I know this musuc very well but the Injection Channel made it TONALLY HALLUCINOGENIC. The effect if injections truly phenomenal.

I started with Stravinsky’s L'Histoire du Soldat by Ars Nova Ensemble by Mandell (courtesy to Robert Witrak and Charles King). It is kind of is a way difficult to listen this recording. It has poltergeists in it without Injection but with Injection it kind of…become so freakish that it is not tolerable.

Then it was Rachmaninoff’s Second Concerto by Byron Janis and Minneapolis Symphony. It hardly possible to find any more interesting committed to record orchestral play of the Rach’s PC2 .  The Dorati’s orchestra nothing short of stunning and what I looks for THE tone it should not go too far from there…

Then it was Haydn’s “La Reine de France” by Chicago and Kurt Masur from 1988. Chicago in 80s? Haydn and Masur? All together?  Am I kidding? Well, listening what they do it looks like they were kidding. It is kind of “pressurized Haydn”, played with Glenn Gould’s “nervousness” and with the Van Gogh’s over-expressive colors. The Injection made the room truly seaming in the colors, wit all those grades, shadows and overtones… I disconnected the Super Milqs and listened juts the Injection Channel. It sounded like drinking consecrated syrup while being thirsty. However, at minus 9dB and supplemented with Macondo it was quite tonally wonderful.

Then I played a French-pressed Menuhin with Shankar. It is not exactly my music but I hit it anciently while was trying to play other Menuhin. However, the Sound of that “Shankuhin” was so interesting this time that I actually spent quite a time with it.

In the end I played Samson et Darcica by Bastil and Myung Chung. It is amassing what the Injection does to voices!!!

In the end, the Injection Channel is freakishly interesting thing. If someone discover a 4-5” driver that can have the same Syrupy Sound as the Red 10” then please let me know.

Paul S wrote:

And how great is it that this works so well as yet another front-firing driver in that mix? That in and of itself seems so unlikely. But the proof is always in the pudding, isn't it?

jessie.dazzle wrote:

This event really reinforces my curiosity to try such drivers in the Mid-Bass horns. As there are plenty here in Europe, that is exactly my plan (most however are not 16Ω... don't know to what extent that might be an issue... all my other drivers are 15/16Ω... Does anyone have thoughts on this?).

yoshi wrote:

I assume it is the result of specifically targeted application to an already … and would be very difficult to duplicate anywhere else.

As usually I have difficulties with it - the duplication. This subject would go along with the subject of me do not like to provide “recommendations” for audio people.

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/LatestPosts.aspx?ThreadID=4565

The Injection Channel is not some kind of abstractive tonal Injection but the injection of the specific delta between the raw Macondo and the sound that I feel Macondo should have. There are no reasons for anyone to duplicate what I do. Different paybacks might have different sonic charisma, this owner might have different listening objectives and different tonal reference points… Consequentially those system owners, even if they embrace my ideas of Injection, might chose to use the different colorizing drivers/channels and different ways to use them.

So, I do not see that “duplication” even might be considered as an option. I disclosed what I did and if you, the readers, consider it worth attention then feel free to reinvent your own injection techniques… or would be better - invent drivers that would not need any Injection help.