From were you set put a ladder tye a string to it were your head was 15 feet long, go to your horns that is 1000 hz and above put the string threw it go threw the back of it take your driver off measure to the back plate distance from mounting front add that to the string and put some tape on it. Make sure the string is threw the center of horn, Then repete on all horns the same way on both sides, then it will be time aligned. It will inprove quite a bit from were you have it now. good luck

Distortion,

All that might propose you is before making recommendations to “improve quite a bit” something at least to get some practical experience on the subject as from what you said there is a clear evidence that you have none. Otherwise there is truly no need to “advise” and to wish to others “good luck”.

I.M.Distortion wrote:

Dear Romy   Chapter 1 in the audio cyclopedia, you should read it because you are the won who lacks experiance when it come to building a sound system. #1 from were you listen to system from you should be able to look down the throat of every horn in your system. #2 From were you listen from you should have time alignment to every driver, that means every driver should be the same distance from you, and you have a system that has 4 drivers stuck on top of eachother and you thank that is time alignment. So the string idea that i talked about is the easy way to do it. #3 To get costs down when building a sound system, you want to have a clear idea of what you are doing and trying to achieve to get the best possible sound, not start with an abortion and try to carry it a few more years with hapless bad ideas.

Dear, Distortion.

Unfortunately what you describe does not sound to me as “Basic principles of sound” but rather the “the basic principles of somebody who just read audio cyclopedia yesterday for a first time and has no brain to understand what he read”. Juts calm down and pay attention WHY I am so superbly confident that you never dealt with practicality of multi-way horn installation. After you actually do something and try then I would at least have an ability to explain to you why amongyou what you said was wrongly.  Meanwhile your level of understanding the subject and your general overlook is remarkably reminds to me that “angeloitacare” freak. I hope you are not him as you still might have a chance. Be advised that you sound identicalu with that “beyond the help” angeloitacare-freak…. and it is a very bad symptom.

I.M.Distortion wrote:

With the money you spent on the mistakes i could build a speaker system that sound better then the one you use and i would bet on that.

Why do you worry about my money?  Worry about you own results. What you can “bet” I do not particularly care.

I.M.Distortion wrote:

I see the way you are, when someone would say something about your system you get rid of them so you can have the floor.

I am not quite sure what you mean.  I would LOVE to have serious critical discussions about Macondo and about some concepts that I put in Macondo – BTW it is what this thread is for. If what you said above is something that you consider "serious" then you must not talk with me but you need to found that angeloitacare-idiot and create own community of  ”audio-intellectuals”.  As far as I concern all your 6 post at this site werewaste of time to read.

The way you are going with the ajustible settup is correct but it allso needs a ball joint or swivel to angle the horn's in all directions to aim horn's to listener. SOLUTION'S ARE US Distortion

I.M. Distortion wrote :

"...From were you set put a ladder tye a string to it were your head was 15 feet long, go to your horns that is 1000 hz and above put the string threw it go threw the back of it take your driver off measure to the back plate distance from mounting front add that to the string and put some tape on it. Make sure the string is threw the center of horn, Then repete on all horns the same way on both sides, then it will be time aligned..."

I offer the following translation (?) because the English used may be making things a bit cryptic (no criticism intended... I make plenty of errors when writing in foreign languages) I think what I.M. Distortion describes above is the physical enactment of Romy's illustration (a few posts back) showing the relationship of the listener to an arc described by the location of each membrane.
In other words, I think you are both illustrating the same concept... The string idea is a practical means of quickly getting things close; sure it will not be precise down to one one hundredth of a millimeter... That would be the next step. Anyway, here's my translation :

1) Place a step ladder in the listening position.

2) Attach a piece of string to a point on the ladder corresponding to the location of the listener's ears. 

3) Remove drivers from all horns responsible for producing frequencies above 1000 Hz.

4) Extend the free end of the string through the center of each of the above-mentioned horns, and mark the point on the string corresponding to the location of the membrane (where it would be located had the driver not been removed).

5) Position the above-mentioned horns such that the location of their respective membranes will be at the point marked on the string once the drivers are replaced.

I.M. Distortion wrote :

"...#1 from were you listen to system from you should be able to look down the throat of every horn in your system..."

Hmmm... I will soon be able to verify this for myself.

Peace boyz,

jd*

I.M.Distortion wrote:

….  i will prove to you in the future that my idea for time alignment is correct.

You do not need to prove me anything. Read my site archives and you might learn why alignment the drivers how you proposed is not a good idea. Well, it is good for somebody who writes fantasies on web sites but it is about it.

I.M.Distortion wrote:

….  My back ground in audio is second generation, i will give you a clue my dad's picture is in the book you need to read Audio Cyclopedia By Howard M. Tremaine Second Edition.

OK

I.M.Distortion wrote:

I have only had one account with your web site…

That one?

http://www.GoodSoundClub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=3085

It is good book. I do not read books about audio generally. I prefer to invent all necessarily for me audio knowledge myself. This way I do not subordinate to somebody’s mistakes or stupidity – there is a lot of it in audio books.

I.M.Distortion wrote:

If you would like we could start basic principles of sound and go from there.

I.M.Distortion wrote:

I do not consintrate on one system, i have them in every room of my house.

I am sure you do, I am sure you do…

jessie.dazzle wrote:

4) Extend the free end of the string through the center of each of the above-mentioned horns, and mark the point on the string corresponding to the location of the membrane (where it would be located had the driver not been removed). 5) Position the above-mentioned horns such that the location of their respective membranes will be at the point marked on the string once the drivers are replaced.

And can somebody tell me how one can figure out where the membranes located and where is the membrane’s acoustic center would be? The way Distortion's proposed way helps to EQ the proximity from the listening spot to the throats, but THAT proximity is not really relevant distance and it has absolutely nothing to do with arrival time. With the same success we can measure the distance from listening spot to the horn’s mouths or from the listening spot to the next liquor store…

Paul S wrote:

But doesn't putting the drivers on an inward-firing arc more or less shoot all the sound into a point, like the opposite of the Big Bang?

Paul, locating the horn channels on an inward-firing arc and targeting them to the listening point faces absolute prohibition from the perspectives of my Macondo's Axioms. The drivers in nearfield position should be positioned on curve but they must not be angled and shells keep the channels axis strictly parallel

http://www.GoodSoundClub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=7001

BTW, the angling of the upper horn axis is where the Cessaro Gamma screwed up.

I didn't realise you had heard a pair Romy, or do you just 'know' what they sound like?

coops wrote:

I didn't realise you had heard a pair Romy, or do you just 'know' what they sound like?

I do recognize that some of those who have heard the top-angled Cressaro had no understanding WHAT EXACTLY and HOW to listen in the sound of that speaker in order to make the negative effect of axis angling self-evident.  So, what is Moronic? It is OK, this was not the question that requires a answer…

Romy. I have seen no info on your walls or seating position except 6.5 feet from enclosures. Back walls behind the listening position could also be a problem with room acoustics. Is there any foam panels on back walls? any diffusers? Solutions are us. Distortion

Romy the Cat wrote:

Paul S wrote: But doesn't putting the drivers on an inward-firing arc more or less shoot all the sound into a point, like the opposite of the Big Bang? Paul, locating the horn channels on an inward-firing arc and targeting them to the listening point faces absolute prohibition from the perspectives of my Macondo's Axioms. The drivers in nearfield position should be positioned on curve but they must not be angled and shells keep the channels axis strictly parallel

Since the “no tilting rule” is one of the Macondo’s Axioms: (#2 - “All channels shell have strictly parallel axis”) then I would like to defend it.

be wrote:

The time alignment will depend on the geometrics of horn set up and listening position, in the same manner, no matter if the horns are tilted or not. It is simple: delay=(distance of ear to source)/(speed of sound)

It is just logically appears this way but unfortunately it is not so in reality. I do not know well theories behind all of it – my understanding and knowledge has more applied, practitioner outlook to those things – so I declared the harm of tilting as a practical fact but I do not explain the physical nature of this phenomena – I just do not know it. Interestingly I even never asked myself about the underlying reasons. I admit it would be interesting if somebody explain why tilting screw up arrival time but I am too pragmatic to dig in it myself.

be wrote:

I dont see why non tilting should have any advantage over tilting.

Ok, let me to explain. Take MF and HF drivers, position them strictly parallel and perfectly align them from 5 feet and listening position directly on the axis between the drivers.  In this case the driver’s cones will be strictly perpendicular to the main axis and equidistant from the listening position.  Now tilt one of the drivers for 1 degree and recheck the alignment from the same from 5 feet - you will be off. Now re-align the non-parallel drivers again. After you hit the alignment you will see that the equal proximity between the listening position to the driver do not exist anymore and the tilted driver will be in time-aligned setting closer or further then the non-tilted. Let call this tiny change of alignment distance with tilted drivers as the Tilting Excursion

Here is where the whole notion of drivers tilting hits the fan: the changing of listening position distance will demand a different Tilting Excursion. With the parallel drivers the Tilting Excursion juts do not exist. 3 feet, 5 feet, 10 feet – all the same: (distance)/(speed of sound). With the tilted channel you need to introduce a correction – the Tilting Excursion -depending of the listening distance.

The only know to me way to correct the thing is to wear some kind of detector on the listener that will read the distance to the driver and dynamically tilt one of the drivers contingent upon what the listening distance is. One would say: “Well, how about if the listening distance is very firmly set?” Then it should be fine, though I would have my concerns with the alignment at one octave above and before the crossover point in this case and I fell it might be the problem.

Take any loudspeaker with tilted baffle for done tweeters: Grand Slamm, Utopia and so on and take a look how dramatically HF sound changes with them whiles you move closer and further from them. BTW, GOTO officially “do not believe in time alignment” but they recommend tilting the drivers “until you get better sound”. Now you understand what kind BS they propose. BTW, if you have 2 channels with one cone plus 5 degree off the perpendicularity to the main axis and with another cone minus 5 degree off the perpendicularity to the main axis and the channel are time-aligned. Then you will have a perfect listening position no deeper then 1-2mm and you can very much listen in this case in a dentist char. As soon your hear move 1mm off then it will sound like somebody just put a ton of new Black Gates capacitors in your amplifiers….  if you know what I mean. :-)

be wrote:

Actually if one is so close to the horns that one or more of the the throats get obscured from vision by the inside of the horn walls, then the necesarry bending of the sound path will increase the changes of delays, when one is moving around.

I think the diffraction has nothing to do with it as the effect is clearly observable even with the direct radiator dome tweeters.

I.M. Distortion wrote :
      "...#1 from were you listen to system from you should be able to look down the throat of every horn in your system..."

jd wrote : 
      "...Hmmm... I will soon be able to verify this for myself..."


OK, I said soon... Last night I got home and tried angling the horns down toward my listening point.

For those who don’t know, I have made a horn system patterned after Romy’s Macondos. More on that and the differences between the two systems at end of post.

First I should say that the frames which will locate the horns are almost ready. In the mean time, I use a pair of modular metal racks, which I have adjusted for time alignment (not to within .001 of an inch, but as close as is reasonable knowing its temporary). The horns are normally all firing along parallel axes, straight out perpendicular to the rear wall.

So last night I angled the upper horns of right channel down toward listening point, and left the left channel with horns firing along parallel axes. The preamp I use has left and right volume controls, making it easy to listen to one channel at a time. I played a variety of music, trying to stick with mono recordings as much as possible while listining to only one channel.

Here are my preliminary observations listening to the right channel with upper horns angled down, as compared to the left channel with horns firing parallel :

Upper horns angled down (upper horns means 180 Hz fundamentals horn and the tweeter horn) :

1) « Tighter » sound when instrument plays a single note, I would say it was more in focus, but possibly less vibrant.
 
2) Possibly subjectively quieter (want to use one more click on the volume knob… a good sign I guess)

3) Flatter sound (as in less 3D space)

I thought it sounded good enough to take the time to angle the left channel down as well ; its sort of dangerous work due to the weight involved, but I wanted to hear it.

Both channels with upper horns angled down :

1) Game over in 3 seconds… Forget it… The space this system used to depict so fantastically had now gone completely FLATTTTTTTTT.

2) Notes sounded slightly dead and muffled by comparison (reminded me of the very nice box speakers I used to own)

3) Over all less captivating and less involving

This actually scared me ; what if I somehow couldn’t get the magic back (who knows man, maybe I had unknowingly hit the dPols jackpot ?). I put the horns back to parallel alignment, and happily the magic returned.

The new frames will make it far easier and safer to conduct this experiment again, and I will do it just to confirm these results.

I should add that had I never heard the system in its normal parallel firing configuration, I would have probably been impressed by the sound with horns angled down… It did still sound quite good, and I could have been fooled, I am after all an absolute beginner.

About getting this system up and running :

Since moving everything into a room that’s large enough, and putting the upper bass horns into the game, I just sit there in awe. The first night I was literally on my ass in amazement. I told myself no way is this possible… Such warm delicate detial is now filling the space, and what space! Really, I was quite certain that I was just too tired and was imagining this sound. The next night I told myself no way; must have some freaky good electricity here tonight… I gotta get some sleep ! Two weeks later and I am still on my ass. My life has come to a screeching halt. I don’t get anything done… Don’t ever get to sleep before 3 a.m. Don’t leave the house other than for work ; have been pulling on dirty clothes because I just can’t stand the thought of hearing the washing machine in the background… I am quite sure I will forever be single and I just don't care.

Romy you may take this all as a compliment.

Main differences between Romy’s Macondos and my horns, or where I would take the Macondos :

I use a larger top or "fundamentals" horn (180 Hz cut off vs Macondo’s 250 Hz),  which I do not attenuate at all. Consequently, the upper mid range horn (400 Hz ; same as Romy’s) is high-passed electronically at a higher point (4800 Hz 1st order), and the upper bass horn is not asked to play so high.

Relieving the small (400 Hz) horn of some lower frequenqies allows use of the original metal-suspended diaphragms in all four S2s.

I don’t use an injection channel ; My mind could be changed, but I do feel that I get the very nice tone via the above-mentioned diaphragms along with the drivers I use in the upper bass horns (115 Hz cut off ; same as Romy’s) : Old paper cone drivers with big AlNiCo magnets.

For tweeters I use (and love) the Electrovoice T350, which I high-pass at 12 KHz 1st order (well ok, I love one of the two pairs I have… For whatever reason, the other pair is not in the same league). I have zero motivation to try other tweeters.

This system still lacks true dedicated mid-bass horns (pair of 45 Hz straight bass horns "coming soon"), but the upper bass driver goes really low before rolling off, and I do let it go there for now. Also I use a pair of extreme low frequency enclosures, which I currently allow to run up to 90Hz 1st order, so a bit higher than will be the case once the mid-bass horns are done. Romy does have true mid bass (via a pair of line arrays).

The lower bass enclosures are responsible for a lot of the magic (pair of 16 cu ft sealed boxes), and they are very much a part of the system. The drivers have a really easy life… The cones don’t seem to move at all ; but switch them off to hear what they’ve been doing. It doesn’t matter what the music, at the very least they will tell you a lot about the recording space.

I don’t have a pair of Melquaid DSETs. I drive the horns with a pair of Lamm ML2s, running full range. I use a second pair of M1.1s for lower bass. The ML2s are hard to fault. In fact at this point, I can only find positive things to say about them. When I finally identify a good reason (sonic) to do it, I will try building a pair of DSETs… If the 45 Hz horns don’t kill me first.

Jd*

jessie.dazzle wrote:

So last night I angled the upper horns of right channel down toward listening point, and left the left channel with horns firing along parallel axes.