AudioCircle
Industry Circles => GR Research => Topic started by: johnzm on 6 Jun 2012, 08:50 pm
-
I am a big fan of Danny's designs, so much so in fact that every single system in my home has speakers with his magic touch. Because of this, I am posting in dannys forum with hopes that people who enjoy the same speaker qualities I do, can chime in (I hope thats okay, Danny)
lately I have been quite intrigued by the "synergy horn" design.
(http://www.penna-media.hu/danley_web/image/danley_sh50_constrution.jpg)
(http://www.avforum.hu/uploads/post-50-1237717453.jpg)
has anyone heard these types of design before? and does the super V give up anything in resolution or detail (or even naturalness of sound) over these?
I sadly have not had a chance to hear these, so I have no idea if this type of speaker is a good match for me, since i do not enjoy "klipsch sound". so anything anyone has to add about the sound qualities would be very helpful.
-
:o
That crossover is a mess!
-
That is not exactly an audiophile speaker. Those are just designed to be loud.
-
That is not exactly an audiophile speaker. Those are just designed to be loud.
Actually, they are designed to have constant directivity down to a much lower frequency than any conventional "waveguide." Here is a helpful article:
http://redspade-audio.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/synergy-horn.html
-
Reflections like that cannot be good for sound quality. I have read about them before and they're apparently not too bad...maybe for large venues they'd be a nice option.
-
Actually, they are designed to have constant directivity down to a much lower frequency than any conventional "waveguide." Here is a helpful article:
http://redspade-audio.blogspot.com.au/2011/03/synergy-horn.html
Interesting. The performance advantages listed are intriguing, and note " when arrayed..."
I'd love to hear these with some really clean tubes.
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1234/1371096992_e5330f931f_o.jpg)
I haven't got to hear this type of speaker before, but want to now. Super cool, johnzm. :thumb:
Have fun,
Jerry
-
Danny,
have you heard them before? The more I read about them the more I like the qualities of the design. Extremely low distortion, great frequency response, constant directivity, a true point source to under 100hz. I do understand that most of the speakers of this type of design are made for large venue's but wouldn't those attributes also be very nice to have in a home environment as well?
Also, if anyone has heard them please chime in. I'd love to hear about what you thought of them :)
-
That crossover is a mess!
+1 Yep, they break the rule about inductor placement: you should not be able to look through the center of an inductor coil and see another inductor. That's the result of correct physical placement to avoid magnetic field interference. I bet those speakers are very expensive - looks like a large labor content.
-
They may have a constant directivity that is a little lower than most but that is not that big of a deal. The time domain aspect will be a mess. It reminds me of car audio. I'll just put woofers in my lower kick panels and tweeters in my dash. That will work right?
The spectral decay is likely to show some issues as well. The impedance curve would allow some internal resonances to show too. I'd need to see all of that before even considering it even for non-audiophile applications.
There is nothing about that design that would make me think "oh that might sound good".
-
I'll just put woofers in my lower kick panels and tweeters in my dash. That will work right?
Sorry for the OT post but I'll take this opportunity to ask as I'm fitting a stereo to my car soon. Hope it's ok!
Danny, would you suggest putting the tweeters down in the doors as close as possible to the mids, instead of in the corners of the dash/front door windows area?
-
Sorry for the OT post but I'll take this opportunity to ask as I'm fitting a stereo to my car soon. Hope it's ok!
Danny, would you suggest putting the tweeters down in the doors as close as possible to the mids, instead of in the corners of the dash/front door windows area?
Rule of thumb is that you want the acoustics centers of your drivers to be less than the distance of the wavelength of the crossover point. See chat here: http://www.soundoctor.com/freq.htm
For instance, if your crossover point is 2100Hz then you need your acoustic centers to be less than 6.5" apart. Closer is better and further apart than that really starts creating lobbing errors that can be too much to live with.
-
Fantastic, thanks for the info and link, much appreciated. That's what I'll do :)
-
The time domain aspect will be a mess.
Danny, that's not what the measurements show. The time domain performance of the older Unities and newer Synergies is pretty spectacular.
There is nothing about that design that would make me think "oh that might sound good".
There is nothing about a 5-7" woofer combined with a tweeter loaded on a 180deg waveguide (i.e. flush on a baffle) that would make me think "oh that might sound good," either.
-
Danny, that's not what the measurements show. The time domain performance of the older Unities and newer Synergies is pretty spectacular.
The tweeter is behind the mids (delayed in time) a good 6 inches or so and the mids are behind the woofers (delayed in time) a good 12 inches or so. Yet the time domain is spectacular? Have any step responses on this thing to show that? If you have a digital crossover then you might be able to dial in enough correction to fix that, but not with a passive crossover.
There is nothing about a 5-7" woofer combined with a tweeter loaded on a 180deg waveguide (i.e. flush on a baffle) that would make me think "oh that might sound good," either.
You might be in for a big surprise. If you think I might get a big surprise from these drivers mounted in a bull horn then please enlighten me.
And if anyone would like to bring one by I will be glad to measure and test it for you (FOR FREE).
-
The tweeter is behind the mids (delayed in time) a good 6 inches or so and the mids are behind the woofers (delayed in time) a good 12 inches or so. Yet the time domain is spectacular? Have any step responses on this thing to show that? If you have a digital crossover then you might be able to dial in enough correction to fix that, but not with a passive crossover.
You might be in for a big surprise. If you think I might get a big surprise from these drivers mounted in a bull horn then please enlighten me.
And if anyone would like to bring one by I will be glad to measure and test it for you (FOR FREE).
I dont mean to ruffle anyones feathers, but I am glad there is more participation in the thread than just me. I dont know nearly enough to contribute, except that there are alot of things that look nice on paper. I would assume the crossover is a mess, because it has alot of correction in the time domain Danny is talking about? or am I wrong?
A few of the home brew copys of this speaker people are mentioning the use of digital x overs for simplicity.
there is some measurements of the horn on their pdf
http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/pdf/danley_tapped.pdf
I am assuming that the group delay is not applicable to what Danny is looking for, is it?
-
The tweeter is behind the mids (delayed in time) a good 6 inches or so and the mids are behind the woofers (delayed in time) a good 12 inches or so. Yet the time domain is spectacular? Have any step responses on this thing to show that? If you have a digital crossover then you might be able to dial in enough correction to fix that, but not with a passive crossover.
Take it up with Tom Danley. He's shown measurements that do your step response one better: the speakers pass a square wave.
You might be in for a big surprise.
Nope.
I like the sound of high-fidelity speakers, not speakers that throw a mushroom cloud of midrange energy into the room like typical "High End" speakers. And all speakers designed along the model I discuss above ("5-7 [inch] woofer combined with a tweeter loaded on a 180deg waveguide") will do that. It's simple physics: the woofer narrows in directivity with increasing frequency, and the tweeter blasts wide open at the bottom of its passband.
-
The tweeter is behind the mids (delayed in time) a good 6 inches or so and the mids are behind the woofers (delayed in time) a good 12 inches or so. Yet the time domain is spectacular? Have any step responses on this thing to show that? If you have a digital crossover then you might be able to dial in enough correction to fix that, but not with a passive crossover.
As DS-21 points out, you're jumping to incorrect conclusions. The entry points for the mids are placed 1/4 wave at xover from the throat. The asymmetrical xover slope coupled with the inherent bandpass nature of the mid mounting arrangement results in a linear-phase / time coherent xover. The same principle is at play in the mid-to-woof xover. Tom has posted measured results showing the passing of a square wave over a decade of bandwidth (beyond that the inherent bandwidth of the speaker starts to distort the square wave)
The result is that these really do operate like a single point source with basically constant directivity over most of their bandwidth. Not other setup that I've seen manages to accomplish that.
You might be in for a big surprise. If you think I might get a big surprise from these drivers mounted in a bull horn then please enlighten me.
Well, if you look at the engineering honestly rather than jumping to conclusions, I think you'll find one of the more interesting and elegant designs that is out there. If there is a fault with them, it's that mouth termination could be better and my result in diffraction.
These definitely are designed for pro applications, but I used a version of the simpler design as my main speakers for a while (Yorkville U15). With a bit of judicious EQ, they were eminently capable of high-end performance, and the true Danley designs are most assuredly substantially better. As you apparently experience with your co-ax drivers, not everything designed for 'pro' use should be rejected out of hand.
-
Recently I got a chance to hear these exact speakers (SH50) here in the Bay Area at a local dealers house. Unfortunately the room he had them set up in was completely untreated and had a huge glass sliding door off to one side: reflection city. He had the passive version of these and the amps that were driving them were surely not audiophile grade by any means. Plus he played them super loud and within minutes of the demo I got that special feeling in my ears. So not really the ideal demo situation.
That being said, on the plus side they had an excellent level of detail. I was also impressed at how coherent they sounded. Pattern control was very tight, just like I've read about online. However they did not image very well at all, at least in that setup. That was perhaps the biggest surprise for me that day. For home theater or 2 Ch use the new SM series would be a better way to go IMO since they are significantly smaller and have better HF response.
Speaking of which the SM96 has been on my radar for a while now. The beautiful thing about it is that it could be used for multiple purposes: 2 Ch audiophile rig, as a monitor for mixing and maybe mastering, and as part of a small sound reinforcement system for doing small to medium gigs. There are not many other speakers out there I can say that about. There is a company here that rents Danley gear, perhaps spending a weekend with a pair would be the way to go.
-
Take it up with Tom Danley. He's shown measurements that do your step response one better: the speakers pass a square wave.
I am not seeing anything from that link that shows a step response, a square wave, or even individual driver responses to allow one to see any phase relationship data. A spectral decay or impedance curve would be nice too.
What I do see is drivers with physical offsets that are clear time delays. I also see a picture of a crossover on one of these speakers that uses a very poor quality level. Electrolytic caps and sand caste resistors are certainly not something that anyone would choose for a speaker if sound quality was an objective. The same can be said for the use of iron core inductors (also pictured) for ranges above 200Hz. And I don't know if the picture of the crossover is one designed by or assembled by Mr. Danley, but whoever assembled them lacks a basic understanding of how inductors in a crossover must be oriented.
I like the sound of high-fidelity speakers, not speakers that throw a mushroom cloud of midrange energy into the room like typical "High End" speakers.
Just so that we understand where you are coming from, would you care to share with us what you consider a high-fidelity speaker?
And all speakers designed along the model I discuss above ("5-7 [inch] woofer combined with a tweeter loaded on a 180deg waveguide") will do that. It's simple physics: the woofer narrows in directivity with increasing frequency, and the tweeter blasts wide open at the bottom of its passband.
What you are really getting at is that you are correlating a speakers off axis behavior with its power response or room response. And that is a valid correlation. Off axis behavior does directly effect a power or room response. But then again so do a lot of other things. The room itself (by far) can be a huge contributing factor to good or bad in room responses. It is part of the system as well, and its size and treatment level should be considered as well as the design of the speakers.
Still it is not hard to get a very consistent in room response from a typical boxed speaker design. And it is not hard to get a very consistent off axis response either. I focus on off axis behavior in all of my designs.
However, as important as off axis consistency might be one cannot focus only on that aspect and disregard driver quality or crossover quality. No matter how good the design may be in one aspect you are still limiting your end goal of true performance if the drivers were meant to be used in car audio or pro audio applications where objectives are often far from that of high end audio.
-
As you apparently experience with your co-ax drivers, not everything designed for 'pro' use should be rejected out of hand.
Yep, some of them are indeed very good. I am very impressed with the P-Audio driver that we use in the Super-V. Honestly though I have found few that are close.
Okay let's step back a minute an assume that what you say is correct and make a comparison.
The entry points for the mids are placed 1/4 wave at xover from the throat. The asymmetrical xover slope coupled with the inherent bandpass nature of the mid mounting arrangement results in a linear-phase / time coherent xover. The same principle is at play in the mid-to-woof xover.
My Super-V uses the P-Audio BM12CX38 driver. It is a coaxial design and the tweeter is offset about 2" from the voice coil of the woofer. So the tweeter is delayed in time slightly compared to the woofer. The crossover point is 1kHz. So at the crossover point the the driver offset is about 1/8th of the wavelength, or about 45 degrees of phase rotation. The crossover is an asymmetrical design (electrically) that yields matching acoustic slopes. The crossover does have some time delayed effects but does not create such a shift that it becomes linear-phase or time coherent (nor could it).
Now the tweeter in this Danley designed horn looks like it is about 6 inches back from the mids. You say it is 1/4 wave off (mids to the throat). Okay that would be about 4" back from the mids if the crossover point is at 1kHz. That's 90 degrees of phase rotation at 1kHz or half way from being out of phase. However, it is stated to be linear-phase / time coherent. Really? So pardon me for jumping to an obvious conclusion. Maybe you can explain how that monstrosity of a crossover is going to compensate for all of that physical driver offset.
If in fact is is time coherent then what would the effects of that be? Well all room reflections aside it should image very well as all would have perfect time arrival. If this is the case then how was the imaging dheming?
However they did not image very well at all, at least in that setup.
Funny thing is that the imaging is also greatly effect by the capacitors used. Capacitors store and release energy. Some are quite fast and cause little time delay smearing. Sonicaps are really good in that regard, and many report upgrading to them greatly improved imaging. Other caps like Electrolytic caps are really bad in that regard. They store and release energy very slowly by comparison. This causes time delay smearing.
So it strikes me as odd to boost of a speakers performance in an area like being phase coherent then use caps that smear the time domain signal.
RMAF is a nice venue to show of a design, especially something that is a patent pending design. Maybe Mr. Danley would like to exhibit there this year to show off this design. I await my surprise.
-
So this is the Danley SH50 being discussed?
http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/pdf/SH%2050%20Spec%20Sheet.PDF
Sounds like a very high efficiency horn -I would imagine that they are incredibly dynamic (like all Danley products). I was glancing through the specs and noticed +/- 3dB from 50 Hz-18kHz and -10dB at 37 Hz.
You would definitely need subs with those speakers.
I freely admit I'm not a fan of horns though. I have never heard ones that didn't have that unique horn sound at some frequency, and it's a sound that I don't care for. Just my opinion. :)
-
I have to admit I am not a big horn fan either.
Looks like they have about an 8db swing in the lower mid-range. I am not sure how that passes their +/-3db specs. It also looks like some cancellation in the throat of that horn at 20kHz. It is down about 20db at 20kHz.
And I wonder how noisy those large un-braced panels are on that box? I hate to jump to conclusions :D but I'd guess pretty noisy.
-
And I wonder how noisy those large un-braced panels are on that box? I hate to jump to conclusions :D but I'd guess pretty noisy.
I know how I measure it but how do you?
-
I know how I measure it but how do you?
I can put an accelerometer to the side of it.
It is pretty easy to feel and hear flexing of panels though.
-
I can put an accelerometer to the side of it.
It is pretty easy to feel and hear flexing of panels though.
Do you?
-
Do you?
Do I what?
-
Do I what?
Log accelerometer data on your cabinets?
-
Log accelerometer data on your cabinets?
I have one and I have used it. I need to get the pre-amp gain adjusted on it so I can get more useful data from it. Right now it is REALLY sensitive.
-
I have one and I have used it. I need to get the pre-amp gain adjusted on it so I can get more useful data from it. Right now it is REALLY sensitive.
Pre amp gain? You mean amp gain? What do you need? I might be able to help depending on what it is. What do you use to log the data with?
-
Pre amp gain? You mean amp gain? What do you need? I might be able to help depending on what it is. What do you use to log the data with?
It has it's own little pre-amp just like some mics do. I use my Clio system for the measurements.
-
I noticed some traffic to my blog from this thread, so it got me curious ...
I have heard the original Unity kit, which was a 60 x 60 passive 2 way with a crossover using parts costing about as much as many DIY projects! It was very strange at the time listening to midrange coming from such a big speaker. Initially I thought the imaging was not very good, however, at another time I actually shut my eyes, my usual way of listening to music and it was then that I realised they could indeed image very well. I've also heard the Yorkville Unity and measured the two Synergy horns that I've designed for my own system. It takes quite some time to grasp even that basic gist of what is going on, and how all the parts interact. It also takes a bit of time to adjust to the sound. Sure, you might have an initial impression, but a speaker that is so different sometimes takes a bit of adjustment.
Subjectively, there is a great deal of midrange detail. It has an uncanny ability to reveal low level midrange detail that tends to get buried in the mix. It can handle very complex music that might normally turn into a mess, and yet it's incredibly resolving. You can demo it to someone who isn't an enthusiast or a discerning listener at all, after one track they will point out all the extra detail. A house mate who was used to hearing all my previous speakers, noticed the detail right away. Many have likened Synergy horns to headphones in this regard. I suspect it may be related to the way sound radiates into the room. The last one that I built maintained a 90 degree dispersion all the way down to 280 Hz.
So one of the first things you notice is a certain dryness to the sound - it is the absence of all the room reflections, even for someone like me who was previously listening to speakers that already have controlled dispersion - similar to Geddes speakers.
You also notice startling dynamics and there is no real limit to their output at home. They keep their cool at all levels.
Being a point source they are very coherent. You can listen at point blank range, with your head in the mouth of the horn, and all the sound appears to come from an area the size of a tennis ball. Only a fullranger can do that.
They aren't designed for home use, the Danley versions. They are intended for pro sound use where there is benefit to putting bass drivers in the horn so you can get some more extension. They aren't horn loaded below about 200 Hz, so they run as direct radiators below that point. The point is to maintain a point source and avoid acoustic interference in large venues where you might fly the speakers and in many situations want to get as much bass as you can out of them. Danley aim to make them cost effective, so obviously they are cutting some corners in using iron core inductors for bass. They are chosen for large installs worth mega bucks after being compared to more familiar alternatives like JBL, QSC, all the big names. They also do it passive to keep things simple. Danley has shown nice performance with square waves, but it's been a while since I've seen it, so it's buried somewhere online. That is WITH a passive crossover, no DSP to cheat!
For home use some different decisions make more sense. I prefer an active version with 60 x 80 dispersion, which is a 2 way that sits on top of a sealed woofer with a pair of Rythmik servo subs in a tapped horn below 40 Hz. Putting woofers in the horn isn't cost effective for home use, because you end up using cheaper woofers to make up for using 4 of them. I'd rather have 2 really good ones. I use a digital active crossover and so that does make things easier.
Anyone who wants to start to understand it - I suggest you have a look at the patent, because it explains quite a few things.
Along the axis of the horn, the ports are placed 1/4 wavelength away from the apex at the intended crossover point, placing a cancellation notch above the crossover, caused by the reflection back from the throat. The area under the cone in conjunction with the port acts as a bandpass chamber, applying acoustic filtering. So you typically see the midrange drop off by 30 db, resulting in a 30 db reduction in harmonic distortion components that fall above the acoustic filter. The original Unity kit has ultra low distortion, more akin to an amplifier than a speaker, and this remained true at high levels. Some like Geddes might write this off as useless, but when it comes to distortion, I'm thinking less is more! Further, higher order distortion products would be reduced even more. The compression driver of course acts as it would in another other design, since it would always be horn loaded. What is clever in the Synergy is that you can actually design the horn as a waveguide, giving it a smooth transition more like an oblate spheroidal waveguide, or a JBL progressive transition. Yet the mids are horn loaded - the offset actually causes a conical horn to have better loading than driving from the apex.
It is not without some irony, that the Synergy horn is criticised for not doing something that is actually one of the primary strengths, where it is uniquely superior to most alternatives. There are three things that work together to this end:
1. Offset of the mids towards the mouth
2. Acoustic chamber
3. Crossover
I have not yet designed a passive crossover for a Synergy horn, but I have seen a square wave measurement from Danley indicating it is doing well in this regard.
Now if you consider that the midrange and tweeter outputs are all correctly time aligned, yet differently loaded due to the port offsets, now you have a coherent point source. Now Danley adds woofers in the same way to continue this point source down into the bass, and the woofers are then working as 6th order bandpass with a tiny amount of loading above 200 Hz, perhaps 200 - 400 Hz.
Now for some measurements:
This is the Yorkvile, measured outdoors elevated up on my directivity measurement rig:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-bc96rkoShD4/TrnK20X5onI/AAAAAAAABDY/jo5asorTjv4/s1600/Directivity-Yorkville.jpg)
You can see some narrowing before patten control is lost, because Yorkville did not flare out the mouth enough to counter beaming.
Now this is my first attempt, very much like the old Unity kit:
(http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-i81H2DNPBWU/TrnK5Ad2oOI/AAAAAAAABDg/MD5kH8FSIqE/s1600/Directivity-S1.jpg)
The bigger mouth maintains pattern control down to about 700 Hz.
Now this is another version, I call it S1:
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-hL1japVqkoM/TrnK61t8Z2I/AAAAAAAABDo/E8JyA813dkQ/s1600/Directivity-S2.jpg)
It has wider dispersion (90 vs 60) and a big mouth so the two result in taking pattern control really low, it goes off the chart!
This is the measurement rig, with angle markings on the nice piece of redgum turned up on the lathe.
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-D_dAXbrCWn8/TrUVCx9PGUI/AAAAAAAABA0/qlsZHCVtROk/s1600/SpolarGTGimg004.jpg)
The sound of a Synergy horn is quite unique. It has aspects similar to a Martin Logan Electrostatic, but a very different room interaction. The image is more tightly focused than a dipole speaker. You don't get quite the same depth of an omni or dipole, but I find that depth, whilst enjoyable in many cases, can also cause vocals to be artificially stretched. Hence I'm not keen on what dipoles do to dialogue on a movie. The sweet spot is very wide if you use correct toe in, which for a constant directivity speaker is quite a generous toe in much more than anyone would choose in many cases.
If I could complain about anything, it would be that you don't tend to get the same sense of air that you can get with more exotic tweeters like ribbons and AMTs. However, I find the Synergy more natural overall.
To anyone who gets a chance to hear one - go for it! I'd be very surprised if you have heard anything similar.
Unfortunately it might not be a good idea for people to get too excited about Synergy horns. WAF is low unless you can do this ...
(http://www.cowanaudio.com/images/finale5.jpg)
Yes, those black grilles hide Unity horns with an array of Peerless subs. I've heard a couple of people who heard that system describe it as the best they had heard.
For the lazy people who won't go and search for the patent, here it is:
http://www.wipo.int/pctdb/en/fetch.jsp?LANG=ENG&DBSELECT=PCT&SERVER_TYPE=19-10&SORT=41270106-KEY&TYPE_FIELD=256&IDB=0&IDOC=1468907&C=10&ELEMENT_SET=B&RESULT=2&TOTAL=5&START=1&DISP=25&FORM=SEP-0/HITNUM,B-ENG,DP,MC,AN,PA,ABSUM-ENG&SEARCH_IA=US2006022032&QUERY=%28IN%2fdanley+AND+IN%2fthomas%29
So what do I like about the Synergy horn:
* dynamic, loud, clean
* all the benefits of horns without their obnoxious problems
* image focus, large sound stage and wide sweet spot
* incredible midrange detail
* interesting and challenging to design and build
* room interaction
* works well in small rooms
* suited to installation studio style
One more thing about the crossover. It doesn't use textbook filters!
One thing that Danley hasn't done, which I think is needed for home use, is to fill the horn with reticulated foam that Geddes uses.
-
(http://www.avforum.hu/uploads/post-50-1237717453.jpg)
You can see choices there obviously related to economy. Ferrite cored inductors on the bass - I hate to see them on some nice B&C woofers! Looks like possibly even some MDF on the mouth flare. Also Ferrite magnet drivers which are going to be quite heavy.
Interesting. The performance advantages listed are intriguing, and note " when arrayed..."
I'd love to hear these with some really clean tubes.
(http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1234/1371096992_e5330f931f_o.jpg)
I haven't got to hear this type of speaker before, but want to now. Super cool, johnzm. :thumb:
Have fun,
Jerry
Apparently they are better suited to arraying than most, but where the output of one box is not enough, Danley recommends his other designs such as the Genesis and Jerico horns. Those are also based around the point source horn concept.
More food for thought:
Danley:
In the Synergy horns, the sources combine into one single horn radiation and in say the SH-50, the polar pattern has NO lobes and nulls even at / through crossovers and the sources combine tightly enough to reproduce a square wave from very good to fair, continuously over a decade wide bandwidth and not dependent on a specific location (other than in the pattern).
Most hifi speakers cannot reproduce a square wave over a wide band, or in any position; no commercial sound speakers I know of can do that especially with a passive crossover. A side effect is that two SH-50’s (or our other acoustically array-able boxes) can actually be placed and used side by side (hard packed) with no audible seam between boxes.
Now I managed to find some square waves ...
Here is the thread:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/71824-making-square-waves.html#post817215
250 Hz ... I believe this is a SH50
(http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/attachments/multi-way/56949d1137378269-making-square-waves-p1010007-copy.jpg)
1k
(http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/attachments/multi-way/56950d1137378357-making-square-waves-p1010013-copy.jpg)
2.5k
(http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/attachments/multi-way/56951d1137378544-making-square-waves-p1010019-copy.jpg)
The best square wave that I have seen by far, was with an ordinary speaker corrected with DSP (Bodzio Ultimate Eq). It's here:
http://www.bodziosoftware.com.au/Square_Wave.pdf
It starts out as nothing like a square wave. The software is able to dial in an ideal phase and group delay response, so it isn't your average digital crossover like say a Behringer DCX or MiniDSP.
Now the tweeter in this Danley designed horn looks like it is about 6 inches back from the mids. You say it is 1/4 wave off (mids to the throat). Okay that would be about 4" back from the mids if the crossover point is at 1kHz. That's 90 degrees of phase rotation at 1kHz or half way from being out of phase. However, it is stated to be linear-phase / time coherent. Really? So pardon me for jumping to an obvious conclusion. Maybe you can explain how that monstrosity of a crossover is going to compensate for all of that physical driver offset.
You will find that the port offsets are more like 1/4 wavelength at 1 - 1.5k. Smaller mids are used for a higher crossover so they can go closer to the throat. It's quite a bit of work to get it all working together. With a 5" mid you can get them close enough for 1k. To get to around 1.2 - 1.5 you need a 4" mid. 4 - 6" mids are typically used.
If you go to the Danley website you can also see the phase response of the speakers.
I haven't looked very closely at that crossover, but I see both poly and electro caps. I would guess that electros are in there for less important functions. For a Zobel filter, I'm thinking we can excuse electros. We know that over time the value will change, however, since we aren't relying on it to the same degree as one responsible for the actual filtering, but instead it has a more indirect influence, then it's not going to have the same penalty. I usually use active crossovers, but if you have compared electros to poly caps in various parts in the crossover in controlled conditions, I'm interested to hear what you found.
I actually think they should just bi-amp them and take out inductors on the bass drivers. No need to cut costs with ferrite inductors. However, Danley knows his customers and what they will accept. And I'm sure that some would bi-amp them in which case some inductors are taken out.
Regarding the acoustic centre of mids and tweeter - that is something that I will be investigating soon.
Danny,
If you have measurements of square waves I'd be interested to see them. It's not something that is often shown.
-
for anyone else who does not see the square waves, just login to DIYaudio and then refresh this page and the pictures will come up :)
This is honestly the first time I've heard the idea of a square wave (and its mentioned multiple times actually) so I am wondering if it even is worth using as a tool, to represent how well a speaker sounds. Or is it possibly just one of those things that can look great on paper but have little or nothing to do with the actual sound quality of the speaker.
Danny, have you any input on this square wave reproduction? and do you have any measurements from the N3 or Super V?
-
Danny, have you any input on this square wave reproduction? and do you have any measurements from the N3 or Super V?
Fellows, I haven't seen anyone use an oscyliscope on a speaker in 20 years.
-
Fellows, I haven't seen anyone use an oscyliscope on a speaker in 20 years.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: typical. Can't criticize the result, so criticize the tool.
johnzm - If you're interested in the Synergy concept there are probably better places to discuss them and learn about the underlying mechanisms. Danny has clearly illustrated that he neither understands them, nor considers their design goals particularly relevant. You seem to be hanging on his 'approval' as a means of evaluating them, which seems like a rather odd way to go about things.
There is a valid point to be made that these are PA speakers designed and executed against goals that are appropriate for PA use. The fact that you can drop them unaltered into a home environment and get very good stereo/HT performance out of them is a bonus, but you'd have to listen to them yourself to know whether the compromises introduced for PA use are acceptable or not.
Certainly the folks over at AVS that have them in their HT seem thrilled.
-
This is honestly the first time I've heard the idea of a square wave (and its mentioned multiple times actually) so I am wondering if it even is worth using as a tool, to represent how well a speaker sounds. Or is it possibly just one of those things that can look great on paper but have little or nothing to do with the actual sound quality of the speaker.
The square wave test is just a visible representation of the phase-coherent nature of a particular design. The degree to which this is audible by itself is hotly debated. Some like Linkwitz claim that the ear is virtually insensitive to phase coherence of this sort. Other anecdotal experience suggests that there is an audible improvement in coherence and intelligibility.
Much of the problem stems from the fact that until DSP came about it was impossible to create designs that only differed in their phase performance, and so a true A-B comparison wasn't possible.
It's fairly clear that phase performance is not a make-or-break characteristic since there are many great sounding speakers that aren't phase coherent. The question is whether it's a refinement that elevates an already good speaker even further.
-
DWK,
please understand I enjoy Danny's designs to a large degree. Horn systems usually arent my cup of tea (even with their somewhat obvious strengths on paper).
I am not really looking for approval as much as opinions (or even facts proved by measurement), and some good conversation about them. I am far from knowledgeable in speaker design, so most of the points that are being made in this thread (from both sides) are just helping me to form an idea about what to expect when I get a chance to hear them.
I am looking around at a way to hear them, which should not be difficult since Danley headquarters is very close to me.
Also, I would like to point out that on AVS, they believe sand cast resistors and cheap caps sound as good as anything else, and that berhinger amps are of the same quality as something Gary dodd makes. So to sit in the AVS forums and listen to them talk about how inferior one speaker design is over another(or even how all RCA cables sound the same), sometimes gets tiring.
-
for anyone else who does not see the square waves, just login to DIYaudio and then refresh this page and the pictures will come up :)
This is honestly the first time I've heard the idea of a square wave (and its mentioned multiple times actually) so I am wondering if it even is worth using as a tool, to represent how well a speaker sounds. Or is it possibly just one of those things that can look great on paper but have little or nothing to do with the actual sound quality of the speaker.
Danny, have you any input on this square wave reproduction? and do you have any measurements from the N3 or Super V?
At headphone.com, they post results of the squarewave tests that they do. It's quite interesting to see that even the most expensive headphones have trouble producing a decent squarewave. Even a flat frequency response, for that matter. I am by no means an expert, but I remember Stereo Review (in the 70's annd 80's) analyzing their squarewave results. In this photo, you can get an idea of the amount of ringing and the transient response that it has. Whether ot not I could hear it would be a different matter.
(http://graphs.headphone.com/iconGraph.php?graphID=867)
http://www.headphone.com/headphones/sennheiser-hd-800.php
(http://graphs.headphone.com/iconGraph.php?graphID=866)
-
typical. Can't criticize the result, so criticize the tool.
I am not criticizing it at all. I am being honest.
When I visited the Dunlavy facility, about 14 years ago, he still had one on a table full of old test equipment. As I watched his employees go through a whole range of measurements I never saw it used though.
Danny has clearly illustrated that he neither understands them, nor considers their design goals particularly relevant.
None of what you just said it true. And I consider their design to have good merit and could well be ideal for the application that they are designed for. A high end audio application in a home environment though? I don't see it.
There is a valid point to be made that these are PA speakers designed and executed against goals that are appropriate for PA use.
I agree.
The degree to which this is audible by itself is hotly debated. Some like Linkwitz claim that the ear is virtually insensitive to phase coherence of this sort. Other anecdotal experience suggests that there is an audible improvement in coherence and intelligibility.
How slight of a shift in phase is really audible is certainly debatable. I have to agree with Linkwitz and many others when one considers listening in a home environment. The total in room response consists of many time delayed artifacts that are secondary reflections, and even reflections that are third and fourth reflections. Even a speaker with a controlled dispersion is not at all immune to these room related effects. This often greatly overrides any slight improvement in on axis phase relationships.
And I have worked with and on speakers that are designed to be time and phase coherent.
Here is one of them: http://gr-research.com/spicatc-50upgrade.aspx
(http://gr-research.com/images/tc50.jpg)
But when it came to all the things that was suppose to be better with a speaker having a near perfect step response, it just wasn't there. My A/V-1 speaker by comparison (side by side A/B comparison) killed it in sound stage and imagining.
(http://gr-research.com/images/av1m1_med.jpg)
It's fairly clear that phase performance is not a make-or-break characteristic since there are many great sounding speakers that aren't phase coherent. The question is whether it's a refinement that elevates an already good speaker even further.
This is true. All most all of the best speakers I can think of are not phase coherent. In fact I am having trouble thinking of a really good speaker that is. So far I have not seen having a speaker that is time and phase coherent to present an advantage. If you were outdoors (no room reflections) and in a fixed sweet spot then maybe so. Place the speakers in a room and forget it.
And you guys can talk about these here all you want in regards to their design in any way. So long as they are not actively trying to be sold here then I don't mind at all.
Also, I would like to point out that on AVS, they believe sand cast resistors and cheap caps sound as good as anything else, and that berhinger amps are of the same quality as something Gary dodd makes. So to sit in the AVS forums and listen to them talk about how inferior one speaker design is over another(or even how all RCA cables sound the same), sometimes gets tiring.
Good grief. Let's not get started with those guys. I feel sorry for them. I really do. Some people just won't come out of the cave to see the light.
-
Just a few general comments on horns.
Although every one and his brother-in-law raves about the dynamics of whatever speaker they happen to own, the truth is that most speakers have crappy dynamics. In contrast, horns have life-like dynamics that, in my opinion, are more important than most of the “audiophile qualities” that preoccupy most audiophiles, and audiophile publications. In fact, as I said in an essay I wrote a few years ago, it is my belief that audiophiles obsess over imaging and soundstaging in large part because their speakers are so deficient in dynamics, which are an essential part of music.
It is certainly the case that many horns - particularly older models - suffered from serious colorations. However, the past ten or so years have seen dramatic advances in horns, the result not just of better materials, but also of a far better understanding of horn theory (and the underlying mathematics). For those who are interested, I strongly recommend reading the works of Drs. Bruce Edgar and Earl Geddes.
I personally own speakers with a conical horn designed by Bill Woods of AH! Horns (http://www.acoustichorn.com). I have had many very experienced listeners over to hear them, and without exception (and despite many prejudices and preconceived notions), everyone has agreed they are essentially devoid of “honk.”
Other superb horns are those from Acapella (http://www.acapella.de/en/), amongst others.
I should add that a high-quality compression driver in a properly designed horn can provide midrange clarity that is far better than many (if not most) speakers on the market.
Least I be misunderstood, I don’t believe that all horns are good, nor do I believe that the only good speakers are horns. As I’ve written on numerous occasions, there are new speakers on the market that have taken the art of speaker design to places we could not have dreamt of as recently as a decade ago. This is a result of amazing advances in materials and manufacturing (for both drivers and cabinets), and computer-assisted design.
Happy listening.
Larry
-
This is true. All most all of the best speakers I can think of are not phase coherent. In fact I am having trouble thinking of a really good speaker that is. So far I have not seen having a speaker that is time and phase coherent to present an advantage. If you were outdoors (no room reflections) and in a fixed sweet spot then maybe so. Place the speakers in a room and forget it.
Vandersteens - surely you aren't going to claim that the Quattros, 5s, and 7s aren't "really good speakers". How about the Quad panels? Then there's the Thiels - at least the CS series.
-
BobRex:
I too feel that Vandersteen speakers are excellent, though I have know way of knowing how much this is attributable to their time/phase coherence.
I used to own Thiel speakers, and they obviously have many fans, but to my ears they are one of the worst speakers on the market - they have a distortion in the upper mids-trebles that I find unbearable. I am not resorting to hyperbole; I cannot stay in a room with them, as I get headaches.
So my reaction to the two leading time/phase coherent speakers (Meadowlark was a third, but they of course have been out of business for quite a few years) is as different as night is from day; one I think is excellent, the other dreadful. So obviously, their time/phase coherence is but a small part of their overall sonics.
Larry
-
Vandersteens - surely you aren't going to claim that the Quattros, 5s, and 7s aren't "really good speakers". How about the Quad panels? Then there's the Thiels - at least the CS series.
The funny thing is that a couple of those speakers sound completely opposite of each other.
I have to agree with Larry about the Thiels to some degree. I attribute much of their characteristics to their choice of materials. They are simply hard for me to listen to for very long. They have an edge to them or harshness that I can't stand. Sometimes even having a bit of a ring to them.
The Vandy's remind me very much of the Dunlavy's. I have upgraded a bunch of those Dunlavy speakers. With the stock crossover they always sounded a bit soft as if each peak was rounded over. Detail levels that I am used to are a bit smeared and resolution levels are just not there. I typically replace all of the smaller caps with Sonicaps, by-pass the larger Solen poly caps, and replace all of the resistors with Mills. Upgrading the wiring really helps to. After that they sound like a different speaker. Resolution levels and finer detail levels are then back up to near my usual standard.
So the time and phase coherency deal is often easily overshadowed by other issues. It is barely a spec in a really large picture.
-
Just so that we understand where you are coming from, would you care to share with us what you consider a high-fidelity speaker?
I will say the only speaker on your website that has any shot of passing muster with me would be a closed-box version of the Super-V, with the voodoo nonsense taken out (don't care about brands of caps, wires, input terminals, etc.).
My current reference system uses 12" Dual Concentrics out of Tannoy System 12 DMT II speakers, in a low-diffraction closed-box cabinet I commissioned from Nathan Funk. While they currently use passive crossovers, I recently picked up an 8x8 miniDSP, and will actively biamp them when I move (early-mid August).
If a KEF dealer would sell me three of them (as opposed to making me buy two pairs and sell the unneeded speaker) I would probably run KEF Reference 201/2's. They don't have the dynamic snap of the big Tannoys, but except for that they do nothing remotely wrong, and they're a lot nicer to look at.
Underneath them is a Geddes-style multisub system that uses four Aurasound NRT-motor underhung drivers in closed boxes.
I also have some commercial speakers from KEF that use their Uni-Q coincident driver.
Still it is not hard to get a very consistent in room response from a typical boxed speaker design. And it is not hard to get a very consistent off axis response either.
It's hard on the first part. And only possible in a tiny area of the room. (I'm not a head-in-a-vise kind of listener, though others may be.) As for the latter, sure if one considers a mushroom cloud of midrange energy "consistent."
-
This is true. All most all of the best speakers I can think of are not phase coherent. In fact I am having trouble thinking of a really good speaker that is. So far I have not seen having a speaker that is time and phase coherent to present an advantage. If you were outdoors (no room reflections) and in a fixed sweet spot then maybe so. Place the speakers in a room and forget it.
Guess you have never heard these then:
http://www.sourcespeaker.com/Coherentpulse61a.html (http://www.sourcespeaker.com/Coherentpulse61a.html)
They sound outstanding.
-
I will say the only speaker on your website that has any shot of passing muster with me would be a closed-box version of the Super-V, with the voodoo nonsense taken out (don't care about brands of caps, wires, input terminals, etc.).
:lol: :lol: :lol: First of all I have had those drivers in a sealed box and a ported box. They are not even close to what they can do in an open baffle. Plus as soon as I modded the tweeter to make it an open baffle driver as well, it completely transformed the speaker. The highs are much more relaxed and natural now. With the rear cup on it the highs were more compressed and strained.
Un-boxing that driver opened it up and relaxed the mid range. It made all more transparent. Instruments sound like they are really there in the room verses playing from a box.
And all of that so called voodoo is really well proven results across the board. If you are one of those guys that thinks caps are caps and wire is wire then you are really missing out, and have a lot to learn.
I am willing to really help you out though. Take this challenge: http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=87808.0
I'll help you even more.
I recently picked up an 8x8 miniDSP, and will actively biamp them when I move (early-mid August).
Those DSP devices have no place in high end audio. They literally suck the life out of the music. They have about the same quality levels as a CD player bought from Walmart for $99. They may be fun to play with and perfect for an entry level system, but that's about it.
Guess you have never heard these then:
http://www.sourcespeaker.com/Coherentpulse61a.html (http://www.sourcespeaker.com/Coherentpulse61a.html)
They sound outstanding.
I have not heard of those speakers.
I have used those woofers a lot and am not a big fan.
Also, looks like a top of the speaker hangs over the tweeter quite a bit. That can cause a pretty bid disruption to the tweeters response. That would not be a good idea.
-
Those DSP devices have no place in high end audio. They literally suck the life out of the music. They have about the same quality levels as a CD player bought from Walmart for $99. They may be fun to play with and perfect for an entry level system, but that's about it.
I have not heard of those speakers.
I have used those woofers a lot and am not a big fan.
Also, looks like a top of the speaker hangs over the tweeter quite a bit. That can cause a pretty bid disruption to the tweeters response. That would not be a good idea.
Two responses:
1) I am a fan of those woofers. They will expose the upstream electronics for what they are (good or bad). If your input to them is good, then the sound is outstanding (a combination of planar speed and dynamic slam).
2) John Sollecito is one of the chief designers of this speaker. This guy knows his stuff. He previously was involved with the JSE Infinite slope speakers, which were very good sounding. The Source Technology line is all excellent sounding, and this one is one of his best.
Guess your response explains why there are so MANY different speakers out there.
PS: I agree with the DSP comment you made.
-
1) I am a fan of those woofers. They will expose the upstream electronics for what they are (good or bad). If your input to them is good, then the sound is outstanding (a combination of planar speed and dynamic slam).
I test woofers all the time. I even design a lot of woofers. I have used those woofers and I have designed higher quality replacements for them for one of my commercial clients. The Excel woofer to me has a very artificial sound to it. The mid-range is a bit veiled and un-natural. It also has a ring to it because of the sever break up in the upper ranges. An elliptical network is about the only way to control the ringing in the upper ranges.
2) John Sollecito is one of the chief designers of this speaker. This guy knows his stuff. He previously was involved with the JSE Infinite slope speakers, which were very good sounding. The Source Technology line is all excellent sounding, and this one is one of his best.
Well, he either doesn't realize the effects that the overhang causes or is aware of it but disregards it. It will without question cause a lot of diffraction that will disrupt the response considerably.
Here is an example. I designed a crossover for one of my clients that had a slight overhanging top plate. The grill fit flush under it and looked nice, but it certainly effected the response.
Here is a pic of the prototype that was sent to me for crossover design.
(http://gr-research.com/images/front%20edge.jpg)
Here it is after I whacked off the overhanging top.
(http://gr-research.com/images/cut%20top.jpg)
And here are the measured differences, before and after.
(http://gr-research.com/images/reflection.jpg)
Care to guess which is which?
Imagine if it were closer to the tweeter and even longer. I am guessing that the overhang on the speaker that you sent a link to can cause a 10db or greater swing in the response.
-
1) I am a fan of those woofers. They will expose the upstream electronics for what they are (good or bad). If your input to them is good, then the sound is outstanding (a combination of planar speed and dynamic slam).
FYI, that woofer has a moving mass of 15.5 grams. http://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/seas-woofers-6-7/seas-excel-w18e-001-e0018-7-magnesium-cone-woofer/
The one that I replaced it with using a similar motor structure but a paper cone has a moving mass of only 11 grams.
Care to guess which is really closer to having planar like speed?
-
Here is an example. I designed a crossover for one of my clients that had a slight overhanging top plate. The grill fit flush under it and looked nice, but it certainly effected the response.
Here is a pic of the prototype that was sent to me for crossover design. Here it is after I whacked off the overhanging top.
From another topic you stated you designed these for another client. It looks like these speakers would exhibit the same problem.
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=63566)
-
The comparison you provide is a bit of “apples and oranges”, in that the tweeter you measured vs. the one in the Coherent Plus are completely different. I’m sure the recessed tweeter is “by design”. The crossovers are also quite different. Perhaps you (or I) should ask him about why it is so.
As to the Excel woofers, (I) do not hear what you talk about. I do hear clarity of sound that is very natural “provided” the upstream electronics are up to task. When using a mid fi component, the speakers can expose their shortfalls. However, connect a higher end tube amp of Class A solid state amp, and they sound outstanding. Since they are very widely used, a lot of other folks must enjoy them as well, or they would not be used in as many speakers as they are.
-
srb,
That one has a rounded and stepped top plate rather than a flat one and it's effect is not as bad. Still there are some effects to the response from it being there. With the grills on (which has a radius on the inside edge of the grill) the effect of the top is no worse than the same effect that any speaker grill has on any other speaker.
It's not like having a 3" long flat surface right over the tweeter though.
-
The comparison you provide is a bit of “apples and oranges”, in that the tweeter you measured vs. the one in the Coherent Plus are completely different. I’m sure the recessed tweeter is “by design”. The crossovers are also quite different. Perhaps you (or I) should ask him about why it is so.
Diffraction is diffraction there is no changing the physics of it. You can try and compensate for it with the crossover but it doesn't make it go away.
Ask him about it if you like, but I am sure he is not going to provide a response curve with and without it there so that the result can be seen.
As to the Excel woofers, (I) do not hear what you talk about. I do hear clarity of sound that is very natural “provided” the upstream electronics are up to task. When using a mid fi component, the speakers can expose their shortfalls. However, connect a higher end tube amp of Class A solid state amp, and they sound outstanding. Since they are very widely used, a lot of other folks must enjoy them as well, or they would not be used in as many speakers as they are.
Actually, when you step up to the level of electronics that I use then their short comings become quite apparent. They are just simply not up to the performance level of what I am used to listening to and I just don't care for them.
And Bose is also widely used and enjoyed.
-
Back to those original speakers, those CD horn things, would those be considered superior to the Geddes design, or just different? And is there any accessible way to make a pair or are you supposed to be of a certain level and reverse engineer it on your own?
Reading about them, and seeing stacked arrays in the living room makes them seem like a nice high end alternative choice.
The one gentleman, Paul I think, was able to show that they are of a high performance level.
-
:lol: that bose comment is particularly funny...
I hope this thread is not pissing you off Danny, it seems it is growing past the original intentions.
BUT I will admit I am enjoying the dialog. I learn something new in this forum every day!
and secretly, I am hoping someone who owns a pair of these lives close enough to Danny that he can measure it.
but back to the topic, Danny, in your opinion is it even worth the time to persue a design like this? It seems like alot of diy'ers are really looking at the good qualities of this design (possibly ignoring the poor qualities). could this design shine with quality drivers and a well designed network?
-
Actually, when you step up to the level of electronics that I use then their short comings become quite apparent. They are just simply not up to the performance level of what I am used to listening to and I just don't care for them.
And Bose is also widely used and enjoyed.
Comparing Excel drivers to Bose might be good copy, but not true at all.
So, how does one measure the sub-optimum response you state? If it’s by hearing alone, then this discussion is pointless. At that point, it’s a matter of opinion (and you know what they say about opinions). ;)
If you have actual graphs that demonstrate this behavior, (as in distortion and non linearity), that would be enlightening. Could you provide an example of a commercially made woofer that would provide a improved performance?
PS: You have piqued my curiosity about the Coherent speakers, so I’ll ask John about the design, and mention your comments about it. Since I’m sure he designed it that way, I’m interested in his thinking on this.
-
Rclark,
I don't see them as a high end alternative or even a consideration. If I needed to fill an arena sized area with volume though maybe so.
I would really like to hear them though. I am really open minded to this stuff. I have been surprised before.
Johnzm,
I don't mind the discussion at all, and even when the discussion moves around a bit that's still okay. Sometimes discussions like this allow interesting information to come forth.
I wouldn't pursue a design like this for myself or any of my customers. It just fails outside of any market area that I deal with. Even if I were to design something for an arena sized room or stadium I don't know that I would go this direction either.
And I am sure that more could be done with the design if someone wanted to take it to another level. Just higher quality crossovers and a heavier well braced cabinet could go a long way. Even lining the back side of the horn and inside of the box with No Rez would really help. It won't help the wife acceptance factor any. And they still need subs...
If you guys want to tweak on these things I'll be glad to help.
Hey even a bunch of those guys building the Gedlee Abbey speakers were buying Sonicaps and No Rez from me. So I don't mind helping you guys out with any of this stuff. I am in the speaker upgrading and parts supplying business.
-
FYI, that woofer has a moving mass of 15.5 grams. http://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/seas-woofers-6-7/seas-excel-w18e-001-e0018-7-magnesium-cone-woofer/ (http://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/seas-woofers-6-7/seas-excel-w18e-001-e0018-7-magnesium-cone-woofer/)
The one that I replaced it with using a similar motor structure but a paper cone has a moving mass of only 11 grams.
Care to guess which is really closer to having planar like speed?
That’s easy: SEAS Excel, due to the following:
“Strengths are: Best available transparency, imaging, and depth presentation of any type, equaling or exceeding electrostats if carefully designed. High efficiency, high peak levels, and very low IM distortion in the best examples. This class of drivers is considered at the state of the art by many designers, and this field is expected to advance quite rapidly as material technology advances.”
So, they cost more. Oh well.
-
Comparing Excel drivers to Bose might be good copy, but not true at all.
I was only comparing them in regards to you stating their popularity. Obviously they are not in the same performance league.
So, how does one measure the sub-optimum response you state? If it’s by hearing alone, then this discussion is pointless. At that point, it’s a matter of opinion (and you know what they say about opinions).
The stored energy, break up, and ringing effects are clearly seen in the frequency response and spectral decay.
Subjective comparisons are no less valid. Just as many of you guys listen to and compare speakers I do the same thing with drivers. If we only went by the numbers then we could just buy a speaker by the numbers. Funny thing is that I can make one measure great that still sounds bad.
If you have actual graphs that demonstrate this behavior, (as in distortion and non linearity), that would be enlightening. Could you provide an example of a commercially made woofer that would provide a improved performance?
Distortion numbers are not where it is at. For one, there is not even any industry consistency in how that are measured. Secondly, those measurements made outside of an anichoic chamber are not even valid. Plus hearing differences between 1/2% and 1% or between 1% and 2% is next to impossible with music material.
If there is one measurement that really tells you something about how it will sound it is the spectral decay. Stored energy varies a lot from driver to driver and is easily heard.
And I can easily provide you with examples of woofers that sound much better then the comparable Seas Excel. I designed some for a client. I wouldn't say that they are commercially made or available though. They were custom built.
Old product line using Seas Excell drivers:
(http://i.pbase.com/u36/guan_peng/large/23426781.179_7979_r1.jpg)
(http://cgim.audiogon.com/i/rv/s/f/1026307753.jpg)
(http://live.audiogon.com/i/the2005/f/1105650996.jpg)
(http://saturdayaudio.com/picturepages/tyler_linbrook_sig_1.jpg)
(http://www.sonicflare.com/rmaf07tyler1.jpg)
(http://www.tyleracoustics.com/Images/speakers/Linbrook/mon_wn_lg.jpg)
Their new product line can be seen here: http://www.tyleracoustics.com/Decade.html
Here is a sample pic:
(http://www.tyleracoustics.com/Images/speakers/Decade/dht_sm.jpg)
And quite a few people have upgraded from one of the older models to one of the newer ones. Care to guess which line sounds better? I can assure you that the new product line would not have been released if it didn't provide a considerable step up in performance over the older one.
-
That’s easy: SEAS Excel, due to the following:
“Strengths are: Best available transparency, imaging, and depth presentation of any type, equaling or exceeding electrostats if carefully designed. High efficiency, high peak levels, and very low IM distortion in the best examples. This class of drivers is considered at the state of the art by many designers, and this field is expected to advance quite rapidly as material technology advances.”
So, they cost more. Oh well.
Transparency, imaging and depth are not qualities of the drivers. Those qualities are all due to other things. And sensitivity is rather low for the entire line.
Ever look at ads for home theater receivers and see distortion numbers listed like .1% .05% and .001% blah, blah, blah... Do you think the differences in sound quality have anything to do with those numbers? I'll answer it for you. They do not. And the same holds true for drivers. A distortion test can highlight a problem if there is one, but differences in sound quality can not be related to slight variations in distortion numbers.
Exotic materials do not equal performance either. Most of the exotic cone materials have poor internal damping and response problems. Most companies use them more for advertising than anything. Ever see an add that says "Kevlar - what bullet proof jackets and our speakers have in common"
(http://blog.bowers-wilkins.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/10/kevlar_l2_w817_h328.jpg)
-
And all of that so called voodoo is really well proven results across the board. If you are one of those guys that thinks caps are caps and wire is wire then you are really missing out, and have a lot to learn.
Whatever, Danny. You have an obvious pecuniary interest in hawking voodoo, so I won't say anything more about that nonsense on your forum.
Those DSP devices have no place in high end audio.
People with sense have no place in that voodoo cesspool called "high end audio."
I certainly desire no association with such mental midgets!
However, such devices can be used to great effect for people interested in high fidelity music reproduction. Unlike 5-7" midwoofers and tweeters on 180deg waveguides. It's a world you might want to explore more thoroughly. Though the profit margins are probably smaller, because there's no super-expensive wire or electrical parts (caps, resistors, etc.) with eye-popping margins. Just solid engineering.
-
Whatever, Danny. You have an obvious pecuniary interest in hawking voodoo, so I won't say anything more about that nonsense on your forum.
People with sense have no place in that voodoo cesspool called "high end audio."
I certainly desire no association with such mental midgets!
However, such devices can be used to great effect for people interested in high fidelity music reproduction. Unlike 5-7" midwoofers and tweeters on 180deg waveguides. It's a world you might want to explore more thoroughly. Though the profit margins are probably smaller, because there's no super-expensive wire or electrical parts (caps, resistors, etc.) with eye-popping margins. Just solid engineering.
What's the matter DS? You didn't want to take my challenge: http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=87808.0
Afraid some voodoo might rub off on you and you start hearing differences?
-
.................. this is starting to sound more and more like an AVS thread. Name calling and making snide remarks when you disagree with anothers opinion.
I may drop out. :(
-
Exotic materials do not equal performance either.
But you don't include caps, wire & resistors in this category? :P
Those DSP devices have no place in high end audio. They literally suck the life out of the music. They have about the same quality levels as a CD player bought from Walmart for $99. They may be fun to play with and perfect for an entry level system, but that's about it.
Really? You have used one? Your customer Tyson uses one with his V2's and swears by it from what I remember. If I remember correctly, he says that it is much better then his stock passive crossover. Maybe he will chime in. :dunno:
-
Although every one and his brother-in-law raves about the dynamics of whatever speaker they happen to own, the truth is that most speakers have crappy dynamics. In contrast, horns have life-like dynamics that, in my opinion, are more important than most of the “audiophile qualities” that preoccupy most audiophiles, and audiophile publications. In fact, as I said in an essay I wrote a few years ago, it is my belief that audiophiles obsess over imaging and soundstaging in large part because their speakers are so deficient in dynamics, which are an essential part of music.
Larry
Have you ever listened to a pair of Danny's LS6 or LS9s? Sadly, they no longer appear on his product page, but are available from a few builders. I own a pair of LS9s, and believe me, they are dynamic! And most certainly posses 'audiophile qualities too.
Personally, I've never been a fan of horns, at least indoors. :lol:
O.K., a little off topic, but I just had to chime in.
-
But you don't include caps, wire & resistors in this category?
All common materials. :P
Really? You have used one? Your customer Tyson uses one with his V2's and swears by it from what I remember. If I remember correctly, he says that it is much better then his stock passive crossover. Maybe he will chime in.
Tyson installed a new tweeter with an open back. So the passive crossover could no longer be used.
-
Hi all
One of the posters suggest I comment on the thread, so a few words.
The design may appear puzzling but there is a reason for the layout.
The object is to produce the radiation of a single wide band driver and have a high degree of directivity and to have that directivity be as constant as possible.
In no order, the reason why the hf driver being behind the mids and the mids behind the woofers is because the hf portion emerges from a crossover first and the lf last.
In normal speakers, even ones called “time coherent” there is a phase shift going from below xover to above xover, they have an “all pass” phase rotation which is also a change in time.
This would be true of all the familiar named types like Butterworth, Linkwitz and so on, they all have a rotation (above 1st order) which adds 90 degrees of shift per order so a 4th order exhibits a 360 degree phase rotation from well above to well below Xover F.
It is that phase shift or the change in time vs frequency which prevents most multi-way speakers from producing a square wave over a broad bandwidth.
We don’t listen to square waves but they are a good diagnostic signal and there reason they can do this has nothing to do with square waves.
If you have two drivers and place them a quarter wavelength or less apart, they add coherently into one source and they feel each others radiation resistance. This condition of coherent addition is easy for woofers where the wavelength is large compared to the source.
If the two sources are significantly farther apart, say a half wavelength or more, then they radiate as independent sources instead of adding coherently and now produce an interference pattern which is a pattern of addition and cancelations evident in a polar pattern as lobes and nulls. The greater the driver spacing, the more lobes and nulls are produced.
When one has a crossover, there is a region where both sources radiate simultaneously and so fall into this regime. In “hifi” loudspeakers the idea is to make the main or largest lobe face the listener and the nulls and other lobes point elsewhere.
As one Goal in the synergy horn is to have a high degree of directivty and have it be constant, one cannot have an interference pattern and do this. For the drivers to add within a synergy horn, they are always less than a quarter wavelength apart when they interact or where multiple drivers are interacting (such as 4 mids and 2 woofers in the SH-50).
By doing this and having ht e correct phase response from the crossovers, the drivers sum together into one system so well that you can remove the grill (mine don’t have grills, but I like the look of horns) and not hear it’s a three way speaker, you can walk up and never hear there is more than one driver, even when your head is fully inside the horn mouth.
That coherent addition is the object, there are no lobes and nulls, only one large forward lobe that in time AND space appear to be a single driver.
Being able to preserve time well enough to produce a square wave was simply a side effect, not the object. By radiating as a single segment of a point source instead of an interference pattern, the speaker conveys less information about itself so far as where it is in depth when your eyes are closed in a home stereo .
In larger sound installations where most of our stuff goes, there are several advantages over the arrays normally used. First, there is still only one arrival in time instead of a arrival from each source according to distance from the microphone so the sound is vastly more hifi. Second with an interfering array, the frequency response is different at every location and if the wind blows at all, the interference pattern is quite obvious.
The up side of those large arrays is they require a lot more drivers when they partly cancel each other out instead of adding coherently and of course more amplifiers, processors and so on all good for the manufacturers.
The up side of the Synergy horn is even though they are much smaller, without the inference pattern, there is far less energy radiated to the sides, rear, up and down and this is great for sound large rooms.
So far as crossover design, there is no number one rule, there are lots of rules which apply and while a thumb rule might tell the DIY’r how to place them, what matters is if they interfere with each other. Part of the reason they are large is for power handling and part because they are not a normal topology but a a filter design which accommodates the amplitude and phase of each range to add into one source.
I have to apologize for our web site and the old measurements, since the web firm went under we have not been able to update anything and our new website is not quite done. The goal was to have it done before the Trade show next week but even that may not happen (I don’t know beans about that html stuff). Since last year we have also been about as busy as we can be.
To offset the stymied web page they set up a Facebook page which has FAR more current stuff.
http://www.facebook.com/DanleySoundLabs?ref=ts
One of the things we have done in the development of the synergy horns was to adapt an old time subjective evaluation, the generation loss test. In the old days of analogue tape, one would record music and then see how many generations it would take before sounding bad.
Any part of the modern reproduction chain can have a signal passed through it multiple times before it becomes unlistenable, any part except the loudspeaker. When you use a measurement mic to record a loudspeaker (we did it while up in the air) you find some speakers sound bad on the first generation (some just listening through a mic), very few sound ok at two generations and very very few will go three generations and at three or four even an SH-50 is sounding lame.
AS the Synergy horns got closer and closer to one source in time and space, they also would allow more generations before sounding bad.
While I can’t demonstrate them to you and the company isn’t interested in home hifi at the moment, if you have headphones, you can hear what a couple of them sound like.
The first outdoor test of the J1, here how little the sound changes as the camera man moves around
.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pk54IFD4znw&feature=fvwrel
This is the J3, a demo in December for some stadium sound people. The video was taken by a guy who attended (his mics were squashed when too close to the sub). This was pretty loud, adjust the volume to scale the voice at 1:30. Most of the people were out in the field on a ridge at 450 feet (at 2:15 he pans out). Notice how there is no comb filtering as he moves and how much directivity there is when he walks under the flown cabinet.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5MOG_sPejGA&feature=related
What you can do with one
http://www.audioprointernational.com/news/read/danley-jericho-horns-cover-30-000-capacity-florida-football-stadium/03934
It had to happen, someone using two of them indoors for a stereo;
http://www.fohonline.com/news/6814-soundco-takes-pair-of-danley-jericho-horns-inside-for-church-project.html
What that sounds like
http://vimeo.com/40148645
Some history
http://www.avnetwork.com/features/0014/epiphany/77186
Its nice when even the players notice;
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CsS91hTKqw
Anyway, I hope the ramble helps explain what’s going on and what’s different.
Best,
Tom Danley
Danley Sound Labs
-
Tom,
Welcome to AC and thanks for joining in.
-
Very Interesting Mr. Danley, thank you, hopefully you can stick around and answer questions. I'm going to dive in on that big post.
And DS-21, you are mistaken. I have been privy to Danny's "voodoo" a couple times now. The most telling situation was when I ran a GR crossover on one side and the stock one on another. Quite a difference in quality across the board. I don't think Danny is out to fool anybody or rip them off. If anyone can debate him on his practices, it would have to be a similar, eminent designer with much experience working on lots of driver and speaker designs, not a run of the mill hobbyist, or even a very good hobbyist. Just on the basis of I'd rather watch him answer real questions rather than swat away stuff he's obviously yawning over. So let's move on.
-
Tyson installed a new tweeter with an open back. So the passive crossover could no longer be used.
Of course but you could've probably modded his stock crossover really easily as you know what the point would need to be. Right? Then he would have been using all the gloriious wire, caps and resistors that you say sound better instead of the DSP that you say isn't good for hifi. :wink:
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=91968.0
Background
Honestly, I was never quite happy with the V2 sound in passive mode. I guess I have just been spoiled with the sound of an active system, and the control it affords you.
Like anything in this hobby there are multiple ways and opinions. :thumb:
-
Of course but you could've probably modded his stock crossover really easily as you know what the point would need to be. Right? Then he would have been using all the gloriious wire, caps and resistors that you say sound better instead of the DSP that you say isn't good for hifi. :wink:
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=91968.0
Like anything in this hobby there are multiple ways and opinions. :thumb:
For one, it would have meant redesigning the whole speaker. Testing, measuring, and everything all over again. Crossovers are not simply calculated. And it is not just about the crossover "point".
Secondly, if making a comparison between a passive crossover and a digital crossover and the DAC used with the passive crossover is no better than the DAC in the digital crossover then of course the digital crossover has advantages and will win out. All things being equal I'd go for the digital crossover as well.
However, current digital crossovers are not even close to the top of the line DAC's right now. Comparing the best of the best both have to offer there isn't a digital crossover out there right now in the same ballpark as the top level DAC's and a passive crossover design. Not even close.
The DAC's Tyson was comparing with was more of a lateral move. So I am not surprised in the least if he liked the digital solution better. And for him there was no other solution. And in the end he was not just using a digital crossover but an upgraded tweeter with an open back as well.
-
Hey jtwrace,
FYI, back when Tyson was going back and forth between digital and passive crossovers during the burn in process he posted this:
I've broken in drivers both with and without a passive crossover, and it's about equal between the 2, IMO.
He then went on to upgrade his passive crossovers and had pretty much settled on the passive crossover before going to the V-1 tweeter. He even noted differences and improvements when by-passing caps with Sonicap Platinum's. Those darn tweaky deals...
-
From the perspective of the end user, we/I don't really care about this or that. What sells a speaker is how it sounds and not the stew under the hood. I'm sure that there is a demographic that does or those who read reviews and buy from that end. I'm saying this without disrespect or inference that one is better than the other. However, my personal bias is for the simplest path and that is passive, but that doesn't mean that I would not by a speaker or an outboard active/digital X/O if it did put a bigger smile on my face.
Follow your ears to beautiful music and you will never be disappointed!
Jim
-
What's the matter DS? You didn't want to take my challenge: http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=87808.0
Afraid some voodoo might rub off on you and you start hearing differences?
Actually, this thread is the first time I became aware of your little test. I'm willing to subject my claim to (real) testing. If you want to send the speakers (or just one, as mono has been shown as more revealing of subtle sonic differences in loudspeakers) to ATL with a prepaid return shipping label, I will be happy to take your test.
Note, however, that
(a) I will take my own measurements of the system with each crossover, and
(b) I will listen blind, assuming the measurements show that the two crossovers reasonably track each other. (If the measurements show they will sound different, there's little point in listening. One can safely assume they will be different and move on.)
Now, if those two conditions make you queasy... :)
(Though I already know what the answer will be if I don't hear a difference. You will say that my source or amp or "interconnects" or lack of a Tice clock on the wall or whatever were masking the differences.)
Now, how about you retract your obviously erroneous off-the-cuff assertions about Mr. Danley's design?
-
Back to those original speakers, those CD horn things, would those be considered superior to the Geddes design, or just different? And is there any accessible way to make a pair or are you supposed to be of a certain level and reverse engineer it on your own?
Reading about them, and seeing stacked arrays in the living room makes them seem like a nice high end alternative choice.
The one gentleman, Paul I think, was able to show that they are of a high performance level.
Well, for you lucky guys in the US, I would say you can buy either Geddes or Danley speakers, or perhaps in some cases not have to travel too far to hear them. In terms of making your own, I would say a Synergy horn would be one of the most challenging speakers that one could design from scratch. If I had to think of something more challenging, I'd say it's the Jerico! There is quite some risk involved, much more so than a typical DIY project.
I have not heard a Geddes speaker. Last I heard, no Geddes speaker has made it to Australia - people don't like the shipping. I've heard the old Unity kit from Danley, and the Yorkville Unity, as well as my previous two different Synergy horn prototypes. Before that I heard quite a few speakers similar to a Geddes speaker in design, two of them being oblate spheroidal waveguides with various compression drivers, including DE250 which Geddes uses. I've spent a lot of time with both types of speaker and have a pretty good idea how they sound.
I prefer Synergy horns although I think they occupy similar territory. Those who like one will appreciate the other.
Conventional horn enthusiasts have always had to be a bit tolerant of some pretty major flaws and often severly obnoxious ones. This isn't the case with Geddes speakers, or with Synergy horns. You don't need to add a certain valve amp with the right valves installed to soften their nasty traits. You don't have to accept poor imaging. In fact I would say that only speakers I've heard that could show them up in terms of imaging and the sound stage used a DEQX digital active crossover in a highly treated large room.
Active vs passive ... the question you must ask is "are they doing the same job, or close to it?" That will have a large bearing on the result. You can get the two to sound the same, or they can be very different. If they are doing pretty much the same job, you can expect a very similar sonic result. You are now down to smaller differences like those from driving woofers direction vs having some of the damping factor robbed by inductors. Active may be better in theory in such a case, but not in terms of what you can hear. However, when you start getting a digital crossover to do a different job, you can end up with a very different result. Active might let you run the tweeter lower, leading to better off axis performance, or perhaps the tweeter just sounds better where it can run lower without strain. It can also dial in the ideal phase and group delay.
-
Okay, let's make this a pay per view thread...
Jim
-
Actually, this thread is the first time I became aware of your little test. I'm willing to subject my claim to (real) testing. If you want to send the speakers (or just one, as mono has been shown as more revealing of subtle sonic differences) to ATL with a prepaid return shipping label, I will be happy to take your test.
Note, however, that
(a) I will take my own measurements of the system with each crossover, and
(b) I will listen blind, assuming the measurements show that the two crossovers reasonably track each other. (If the measurements show they will sound different, there's little point in listening. One can safely assume they will be different and move on.)
Now, if those two conditions make you queasy... :)
(Though I already know what the answer will be if I don't hear a difference. You will say that my source or amp or "interconnects" or lack of a Tice clock on the wall or whatever were masking the differences.)
Here is the way the free comparison works. Each person pays shipping to the next person.
Both crossovers measure identically. I matched the parts pretty closely too. Not only do my measurements show them to be the same but others that have measured them confirm that they are the same as well.
However, they do not sound at all the same. About 98% of all people making the comparison note a clear difference and a preference. And it is true that the few that have trouble hearing a difference or noting no difference are those using a budget system that is typically a receiver and cheap CD player and have had no regard for cables. This bottlenecks the differences and makes hearing them difficult. It is kind of like trying to decide which pair of glasses you can see through the best but you have mud on both pairs. So if your system is along those lines then it might be not bo so cut and dry for you.
You can measure them all you want and even post those identical measurements. You must also share you listening impressions though. And you do really have to listen. You can't just measure them, see that they measure the same, then report that they have to sound the same.
-
Here is the way the free comparison works. Each person pays shipping to the next person.
Danny, if I'm going to do marketing for your business (which is what this comparison is, if you're right about the differences) I'm not going to pay a dime to augment your marketing budget.
Really, you're lucky I don't demand my standard hourly rate for my real job for any measurement and listening time. I'm willing to do the measurements and listening pro bono only because there is a chance that I might be wrong and learn something. I don't suspect that will be the case, but one should never conduct a listening test without the utmost intention to ferret out any possible differences, no matter how implausible they may be. So my intention will be to ferret out differences. Should you be willing, I'd also appreciate a list of tracks you've found especially revealing of the differences. Otherwise, I'll use my standard audition playlist. (http://seriousaudioblog.blogspot.com/2012/05/tracks-i-use-to-audition-speakers-and.html)
However, they do not sound at all the same.
That is an assertion which has yet to receive meaningful confirming data. I skimmed the thread, admittedly didn't read the whole thing, and from what I saw nobody seemed to use a methodology I consider adequate. If there is a post that shows a serious attempt to ferret out differences (listeners did not know which was playing, levels were confirmed to be matched, etc.) then please point it out to me.
And it is true that the few that have trouble hearing a difference or noting no difference are those using a budget system that is typically a receiver and cheap CD player and have had no regard for cables.
So we have our answer. If I don't hear a difference, you will blame my equipment.
Never mind that the last serious test to show a difference between two non broken CD transports or DACs was between a very first generation unit with effective 14-bit resolution, and a next-generation unit. (Another test of which I know showed a difference between a Stereophile-favorite Rat Shack portable player and a standard rack unit, but the Rat Shack player was found to have a channel out of phase. I consider that "broken.")
I have personally participated in a listening test with a technically superior unit (Meridian 508.20 factory upgraded to 508.24 spec) and a dirt cheap player (Samsung SACD/DVD-A/DVD player, that cost $60 at a big box store). There were no differences found. Except when someone inadvertently tried to use an SACD without a Red Book layer for one of the listening trials. Then there was a clear difference. :)
This bottlenecks the differences and makes hearing them difficult. It is kind of like trying to decide which pair of glasses you can see through the best but you have mud on both pairs. So if your system is along those lines then it might be not bo so cut and dry for you.
As someone who has required vision correction for over 20 years, and currently requires a fairly high degree of power assistance, I know from experience that I can quickly and easily see a difference between dirty glasses lenses that are -5.25 in one eye and -5.50 in the other, and dirty glasses lenses that are -5.50 in both eyes.
You can measure them all you want and even post those identical measurements. You must also share you listening impressions though. And you do really have to listen. You can't just measure them, see that they measure the same, then report that they have to sound the same.
What I wrote above was the following:
"I will listen blind, assuming the measurements show that the two crossovers reasonably track each other. (If the measurements show they will sound different, there's little point in listening. One can safely assume they will be different and move on.)"
To simplify for people with inadequate reading comprehension skills to competently follow complex ideas, that could be rephrased more simply as:
(a) if they measure substantially the same, I will listen blind, BUT.
(b) if they measure differently, I'll post the different measurements and move on.
Though I'll add to that by "measurement" I mean nothing more than an on-axis FR measurement for each (without moving the mike or the speaker, just swapping wires) and maybe if I feel like it (but probably not) an impedance sweep.
-
Hi all
One of the posters suggest I comment on the thread, so a few words.
*snip*
Best,
Tom Danley
Danley Sound Labs
Welcome to AudioCircle, Mr. Danley. :thumb:
-
Danny, if I'm going to do marketing for your business (which is what this comparison is, if you're right about the differences) I'm not going to pay a dime to augment your marketing budget.
Really, you're lucky I don't demand my standard hourly rate for my real job for any measurement and listening time. I'm willing to do the measurements and listening pro bono only because there is a chance that I might be wrong and learn something. I don't suspect that will be the case, but one should never conduct a listening test without the utmost intention to ferret out any possible differences, no matter how implausible they may be. So my intention will be to ferret out differences. Should you be willing, I'd also appreciate a list of tracks you've found especially revealing of the differences. Otherwise, I'll use my standard audition playlist.
You don't understand. This challenge isn't for me. It's for you. It is for educational purposes only. You have the opportunity to learn something and all it cost you is for you to cover the shipping cost to the next person. I am not going to loan out equipment to you and pay for shipping also just for your education. I am making it real easy for you, but you have to pay a small shipping charge to send them to the next person when you are done.
That is an assertion which has yet to receive meaningful confirming data. I skimmed the thread, admittedly didn't read the whole thing, and from what I saw nobody seemed to use a methodology I consider adequate. If there is a post that shows a serious attempt to ferret out differences (listeners did not know which was playing, levels were confirmed to be matched, etc.) then please point it out to me.
Read some more then. Levels not changed, A/B, and blind A/B for most people. Been there done that. It is not a hard test that requires careful back and forth comparisons for hours on end trying to hear a subtle difference. For most the difference is night and day. And within a few minutes of comparison the higher quality crossover can be discerned in a few seconds.
I have personally participated in a listening test with a technically superior unit (Meridian 508.20 factory upgraded to 508.24 spec) and a dirt cheap player (Samsung SACD/DVD-A/DVD player, that cost $60 at a big box store). There were no differences found. Except when someone inadvertently tried to use an SACD without a Red Book layer for one of the listening trials. Then there was a clear difference.
So all CD players sound the same huh? Wow.... I don't think I even need to say anything more about that. :duh:
-
DS-21,
where are you in GA? I am near Lawrenceville and would split shipping, if you wanted to.
-
Danny,
Thanks for taking time to answer my questions. I have to admit though that I simply do not hear the problems with the SEAS drivers in my speakers which you refer to. Using a Pass Labs XA 30.5 power amp, a X 2.5 preamp, and a Modwright Oppo BDP 95 with the tube stage, the sound from the speakers, which have 2 Seas W18E001 Woofers, and Seas T25CF-002 Tweeters (in a sealed box design) is outstanding (to my ears).
According to Mr. Linkwitz, his observation regarding the SEAS woofers does not appear to match your observations from either a measurement or subjective standpoint, as listed here:
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/x-mid_dist.htm (http://www.linkwitzlab.com/x-mid_dist.htm)
Lastly, the cost associated with the SEAS magnesium drivers may very well factor into a given manufactures decision process as to use or not use them in their speaker line. It's entirely possible a new line of speakers were developed (changed) in order to remain competitive for pricing purposes. Assuming that it simply sounds better is subjective.
-
Danny,
Thanks for taking time to answer my questions. I have to admit though that I simply do not hear the problems with the SEAS drivers in my speakers which you refer to. Using a Pass Labs XA 30.5 power amp, a X 2.5 preamp, and a Modwright Oppo BDP 95 with the tube stage, the sound from the speakers, which have 2 Seas W18E001 Woofers, and Seas T25CF-002 Tweeters (in a sealed box design) is outstanding (to my ears).
Sometimes you won't know how much better a driver can be until you hear one that clearly betters it. An A/B comparison will make it easier to hear the short comings. For some people that's what it takes. For others listening to it for even the first time is a notable backwards step.
According to Mr. Linkwitz, his observation regarding the SEAS woofers does not appear to match your observations from either a measurement or subjective standpoint, as listed here:
http://www.linkwitzlab.com/x-mid_dist.htm
With all due respect to Mr. Linkwitz he is just looking at one aspect (distortion) and it is the least significant aspect one could look it. It will tell you nothing about how a driver sounds.
See some measurements of it on Madisonds web site. The upper range break up and ringing is plain to see.
(http://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/images/products/w18e001-curve.jpg)
Lastly, the cost associated with the SEAS magnesium drivers may very well factor into a given manufactures decision process as to use or not use them in their speaker line. It's entirely possible a new line of speakers were developed (changed) in order to remain competitive for pricing purposes. Assuming that it simply sounds better is subjective.
I can't speak for other companies by my client that was using them came to be because I had told him several times that I could design him a better sounding woofer than the one that he was using. As it turns out, I was correct. His whole product line is now much better. And we aren't ASSUMING that it sounds better. We KNOW that it sounds better.
-
The breakup at higher frequencies with the SEAS driver is a non issue PROVIDED the crossover is designed correctly.
From Mr. Linkwitz link:
“A most remarkable driver is the SEAS W18EX001 because of its excellent linearity, though its burst performance degrades somewhat at 1200 Hz and above, even with no cone breakup below 3 kHz. It is well built with an open cast basket, fully vented spider, and no pole vent.”
That does not sound like a sub-optimum driver to me, nor does it measure like one. Sounds as if you are asserting that a driver can measure better, provide no cone breakup, and still sound worse. How is that possible? :scratch:
-
The breakup at higher frequencies with the SEAS driver is a non issue PROVIDED the crossover is designed correctly.
You have to cross it low and steeply. Even still the ringing is still present just down in amplitude.
Linkwitz gets rid of it well by crossing it over below 1.4kHz and very steeply with an electronic crossover. And Jeff Joseph controls it with his very steep elliptical crossover.
Anything else is going to leave a slight ring. I always hear it in the trailing edges of piano notes with that woofer. It always has the little extra ring.
That does not sound like a sub-optimum driver to me, nor does it measure like one
I wouldn't say it was sub optimal, but it does have it's problems and that is easily seen in its measurements.
Sounds as if you are asserting that a driver can measure better, provide no cone breakup, and still sound worse. How is that possible?
Sure. Did you think all drivers sound the same if they measure the same?
One time I had the same driver made with 7 different cone materials. All else was the same. Would you think them all to sound the same? Not at all. All were quite different.
I can change the type of adhesive used to glue on the surround and change the upper range break up, its stored energy, and how it sounds.
-
Danny,
Regarding the Coherent speaker, John got back to me, and submits the following:
“Valid point...Early reflections are an important issue. What's not obvious in the photo is a large hole cut out window above, with a special window foam insert below. Reflections within the tweeter "cavity" are about 85% down from the same type of cavity, untreated.
Hope this helps”
So, that is the answer.
-
You have to cross it low and steeply. Even still the ringing is still present just down in amplitude.
Linkwitz gets rid of it well by crossing it over below 1.4kHz and very steeply with an electronic crossover. And Jeff Joseph controls it with his very steep elliptical crossover.
Anything else is going to leave a slight ring. I always hear it in the trailing edges of piano notes with that woofer. It always has the little extra ring.
I wouldn't say it was sub optimal, but it does have it's problems and that is easily seen in its measurements.
Sure. Did you think all drivers sound the same if they measure the same?
One time I had the same driver made with 7 different cone materials. All else was the same. Would you think them all to sound the same? Not at all. All were quite different.
I can change the type of adhesive used to glue on the surround and change the upper range break up, its stored energy, and how it sounds.
Fair enough. Thanks for taking time to respond and explain/relate your experiences.
-
Danny,
Regarding the Coherent speaker, John got back to me, and submits the following:
“Valid point...Early reflections are an important issue. What's not obvious in the photo is a large hole cut out window above, with a special window foam insert below. Reflections within the tweeter "cavity" are about 85% down from the same type of cavity, untreated.
Hope this helps”
So, that is the answer.
Very good. Sometimes things are not what they appear to be.
And thanks for posting that and your questions.
-
An interesting thing about this thread is the tension between objectivism and subjetivism. Sometimes we end up in our little camps and it becomes a trench war. I have to say that I don't like it that way because many lessons are lost in warfare! Valid points aren't acknowledged and the brain power better used in learning is turned into proving one's point, being right and fortifying whatever view you came to the battle with, at all cost!
Personally I describe myself as a moderate objectivist. In other words, I believe in the scientific method as the best path to reveal the truth, that differences can be revealed with measurements and that as Paul Klipsch succinctly pointed out, if two things sound the same and measure differently, you're measuring the wrong thing!
However, we also live in the real world where it's probably not worth trying to quantify and measure everything. Where if we find that one cap sounds better despite measuring "close enough," we might not be on a huge mission to find that measurement that tells us why. We probably want to test it under controlled conditions if we think it's really important to be sure, but it's probably not worth it just to prove ourselves right in an internet debate where the stakes are so low!
When it comes to a driver that rings like mad, this is where we want to be measuring to see what we are getting. You can sit back with some music and say "I don't notice a problem!" Trouble is, it might be a reflection on the music you are using, or that you are simply not recognising a problem that is there. Perhaps if it were fixed and you could switch instantly from fixed to unfixed, you would then say "WOW I had no idea it was that bad!" Then you can't go back to unfixed - your brain gets a lock on the problem and now you hear it all the time - this is what I call the man in the moon effect. One seen, you can't "unsee." Try as you might to tell youself, there is no man in the moon, you will always see it. There was one really big blind test in the industry, I believe with thousands who could not hear a problem with a particular codec. One engineer thought it was nonsense, that he could hear it plainly. He pointed it out to those in the test, suddenly everyone could hear it.
I think most of the time there is a problem with subjective comparisons that are done. I was involved in an informal blind test of sorts, with DACs. We were comparing 3 of them. Lampizator, Lenehan PDX (an Aussie local DAC that you might call "mid priced") and a Playback designs unit with its own inbuilt DAC. I believe they were worth about 7k, 3k and 12k or something like that. We had a room full of people listening to a very resolving system, instantly switching from one to the other. Host would say which DAC was being played, then we'd listen. Then we had some runs of trying to pick them blind. I noticed two obvious differences - they each had a different gain level, and a diffferent perceived tonal balance. Obvious enough that I could tell them apart blind without much difficulty. One thing I noticed was that the group, being more towards subjectivist, were all listening subjectively for the overall "feel" of the DACs. When I had the differences figured out, listening in a more deliberate and focused way, I announced "right, A was PDX, B was Playback designs, C was Lampizator." The others who had been listening in a more general way piped up "oh no no, that's not right. I think ...."
Guess who was right? Yup, you guessed it. Not suprising since I had focused carefully on the more obvious cues - a very artificial way of listening, but far more reliable if you need to find something. To be a more serious test, we really needed to have them at least matched in level. Perhaps even corrected in the digital domain for any frequency response shifts. Otherwise we might be comparing tone controls. This is why you have to treat internet opinions on these things with some caution, if you want to know the truth. The degree of rigour to really weed out anything misleading, is usually well beyond what people are willing to put in.
Now if we are going to compare crossover parts then I think what we really want is a setup where you can sit in the listening position and press a switch that instantly changes over from one to the other with no break in the music. This probably means using a relay in place of a manual switch. You power the relay with a little plugpack and switch the power into the plugpack with a remote GPO switch. This would also allow comparisons of cables and perhaps just about anything except a source.
-
When it comes to a driver that rings like mad, this is where we want to be measuring to see what we are getting. You can sit back with some music and say "I don't notice a problem!" Trouble is, it might be a reflection on the music you are using, or that you are simply not recognising a problem that is there. Perhaps if it were fixed and you could switch instantly from fixed to unfixed, you would then say "WOW I had no idea it was that bad!" Then you can't go back to unfixed - your brain gets a lock on the problem and now you hear it all the time - this is what I call the man in the moon effect. One seen, you can't "unsee." Try as you might to tell youself, there is no man in the moon, you will always see it. There was one really big blind test in the industry, I believe with thousands who could not hear a problem with a particular codec. One engineer thought it was nonsense, that he could hear it plainly. He pointed it out to those in the test, suddenly everyone could hear it.
I think you really hit on something there, at least partly explaining break in, and perhaps why some abx tests can be flawed. With audio systems we need time to adjust to all the new changes. Perhaps even a week or more. That time to adjust eventually illuminates what the engineer can otherwise quickly point out.
-
I think you really hit on something there, at least partly explaining break in, and perhaps why some abx tests can be flawed. With audio systems we need time to adjust to all the new changes. Perhaps even a week or more. That time to adjust eventually illuminates what the engineer can otherwise quickly point out.
You can spend years, if not decades not being bothered by substantial problems that could easily be fixed. The fix can sometimes be shown in a very short space of time and it might take moments to undo all those years of thinking "this is fine." It's true that you can start to pick up on certain things over time, but the key here is observation, which may or may not need time. It's also about having relevant experiences and developing an ear for particular things. Often hearing something vs not hearing it is related to paying attention to the right thing, and knowing what you are listening for. He who knows what to listen for, and pays attention to just that one thing will easily notice what 100 people listening in a non specific way will never hear.
-
You can spend years, if not decades not being bothered by substantial problems that could easily be fixed. The fix can sometimes be shown in a very short space of time and it might take moments to undo all those years of thinking "this is fine." It's true that you can start to pick up on certain things over time, but the key here is observation, which may or may not need time. It's also about having relevant experiences and developing an ear for particular things. Often hearing something vs not hearing it is related to paying attention to the right thing, and knowing what you are listening for. He who knows what to listen for, and pays attention to just that one thing will easily notice what 100 people listening in a non specific way will never hear.
Very good point. Listening critically is a SKILL, just like any other endeavor. I find many hobbyists (and professional recording engineers for that matter) just don't know what to listen for or can even hear it if one points out an issue. Just trying to listen to as many systems as possible can be very educational for ones hearing skill and judgement. This is only possible with a reference CD or selections to have any hope of continuity that can be assessed between systems.
Greg
-
Earl Geddes has an interview posted on his website that talks of how 'golden eared' audiophiles aren't as adept as they think. The ear is a useful tool but only to decipher measurements imho.
-
Earl Geddes has an interview posted on his website that talks of how 'golden eared' audiophiles aren't as adept as they think. The ear is a useful tool but only to decipher measurements imho.
I saw a Geddes interview the other day, it may be the same one, very interesting and he has some good points. Earl is a very strong objectivist. Where audiophiles tend to exaggerate a great deal about small audible differences, Earl tends to go the other way and downplay them. I think the truth is somewhere in between those two. A lot of "night and day" differences that audiophiles talk about are actually just subtle differences. Sometimes those who get fixated on those are missing blindingly obvious problems that need fixing.
-
Regardless of what i believe on this subject kudos to danny richie for allowing such a discussion when realistically im pretty sure he could close the thread, delete posts, and maybe even ban people (not sure if hes an administrator). On other forums *cough CHT cough* ANY type of discussion like this wouldnt exist...
-
speaking of geddes.. do they have that horn honk? I would like to hear em, but the WAF is so low i doubt I could ever bring a pair in. the youtube video's of the danleys seem to have a little horn sound to em i tihnk. anyone else hear that?
and I agree with the above poster. Danny is the man! I hope that DS-21 guy puts his money where his mouth is and takes Danny up on the demo of those berhingers. Sadly, he seems like the typical AVS guy :duh: haha
-
Gedlee speakers arent like typical horns at all, they definitely need to be heard.
-
Hi Paul
You bring up something I have noticed as well (that your ears can tune into a flaw after it’s pointed out).
In the generation loss recordings of loudspeakers we were making at work, each generation was an increasing caricature of ‘what is wrong” (everything that prevented it from being faithful to the input signal becomes further exaggerated at each generation). Once one heard the caricature of the problem, it often because plainly audible listening directly. What was interesting was compared to electronics, how few generations some loudspeakers will tolerate before being unlistenable, some sound bad just hearing them (from a single point in space as opposed to two ears) through a measurement mic. Even an SH-50 is sounding kind of lame on generation 3 or 4.
Also, the idea that a driver with a large breakup peak can be fixed with a crossover is flawed or at best a rubber glove fix for a leaking pen.
The reason is that the peak is additional acoustic gain over the main operating band. Lets say you had a +10dB peak at 3KHz, a crossover well below that can produce a nice response curve BUT no matter what one does with electrical filters, the harmonic distortion the driver produces below there is still amplified by that peak. For instance, if the excess acoustic gain is at +10dB @ 3KHz, then at 1KHz the 3rd harmonic will be raised about 10 times (+10dB also), for every sub multiple the harmonic component is raised similarly.
On the other hand, if one were using an acoustic low pass filter (like the Synergy horns have for ranges below the hf) then the harmonic components which fall above that corner are attenuated ( in the Synergy horn, before entering the horn passageway) and the harmonic distortion lowered .
In reading some of the speculation about the Synergy horns here, there are a few other things which should be addressed or people might assume those were valid.
One thing which is sort of funny is that in hifi the 1 m measurements hold so much importance and for engineering a sound system they have a specific purpose, but it’s weird how un-interested people are about how the speaker measures at the listening position. Here is why directivity matters even in the relatively tiny space of a living room. With a dead flat “hifi” speaker one might measure a response + - 10 or even + - 20dB at the typical listening distance (in the latter case with a bare hardwood floor), with the front to back ratio of an SH-50 in the same place in the same room, the response is essentially unaltered above a few hundred Hz.
Best,
Tom Danley
-
For one, it would have meant redesigning the whole speaker. Testing, measuring, and everything all over again.
And for him there was no other solution.
. . . So, Danny, about that as yet unavailable V1 tweeter/8" p-audio coax driver passive crossover. . .? :D
-
Regardless of what i believe on this subject kudos to danny richie for allowing such a discussion when realistically im pretty sure he could close the thread, delete posts, and maybe even ban people (not sure if hes an administrator). On other forums *cough CHT cough* ANY type of discussion like this wouldnt exist...
Why not live up to the standard Danny has set and avoid derailing this thread by smearing another manufacturer's forum? :wink:
-
Why not live up to the standard Danny has set and avoid derailing this thread by smearing another manufacturer's forum? :wink:
I can relate to other forums where if you don't write happy enough you are
summarily dismissed. Been there, done that. Hats off to Danny for allowing
what many others would not tolerate. Good speaker design requires good
debate.
-
Gedlee speakers arent like typical horns at all, they definitely need to be heard.
+1
-
speaking of geddes.. do they have that horn honk? I would like to hear em, but the WAF is so low i doubt I could ever bring a pair in. the youtube video's of the danleys seem to have a little horn sound to em i tihnk. anyone else hear that?
and I agree with the above poster. Danny is the man! I hope that DS-21 guy puts his money where his mouth is and takes Danny up on the demo of those berhingers. Sadly, he seems like the typical AVS guy :duh: haha
Every recording of a system playing a recording I hear has two problems:
1. It's a recording of a recording
2. It's coming through my PC speakers
So I can't comment.
What you really need in those videos is to hear a comparison to another speaker to give some context.
-
Every recording of a system playing a recording I hear has two problems:
1. It's a recording of a recording
2. It's coming through my PC speakers
So I can't comment.
What you really need in those videos is to hear a comparison to another speaker to give some context.
while I generally agree with what you are saying (which made me hesitant to actually mention it) some things like clipping even in a youtube could be heard if the sound is decent enough. Danley was nice enough to post some decently high fidelity recordings. I also used a set of headphones to listen to the videos. the jericho horn is particularly impressive in its ability to project sound a very long ways and still sound decent. I still would like to demo a pair of them, and hope to when all the Danley guys get back from Vegas. I am also interested in hearing the geddes speakers. Anyone in the ATL area willing to let me listen to their geddes? :D
-
Anyone in the ATL area willing to let me listen to their geddes? :D
I'm in CLT.
-
DS-21,
where are you in GA? I am near Lawrenceville and would split shipping, if you wanted to.
Johnzm,
I am in the ATL area, and last year I had these test speakers for a few weeks. In total, about 16-17 audiophile friemds were able to demo them. Switching between the crossovers is easy with the system Danny installed. Each person that heard them was able to hear a difference between the standard and the upgraded crossover, and each person preferred the upgraded crossover. One guy brought his non-audiophile wife along, and at one point during the switching she commented that "those just sound clearer to me", meaning the upgraded crossover. It was really easy to hear the differences once you got a feel for each one. Like Danny said, the more revealing the system, the easier it is to hear those difference. And yes, I did gladly pay shipping to the next guy on the list. :D
Mark
-
Is this what you are talking about?
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=96514.0
-
Is this what you are talking about?
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=96514.0
Yes, those are the ones. Each speaker has 3 switches on the back which allow you to change between the 2 crossovers mounted inside. It is an easy way to demo the differences between a stock crossover and one with upgraded parts.
Mark
-
I can relate to other forums where if you don't write happy enough you are
summarily dismissed. Been there, done that. Hats off to Danny for allowing
what many others would not tolerate. Good speaker design requires good
debate.
Agreed about the discussion. But he can give Danny props without bashing others, correct? FWIW, CHT has been disparaged at Audioholics and AVS, posts deleted, threads whitewashed. As an owner of Danny's work and a moderator for CHT, I don't want to see that drama here.
Perhaps it is best to just stay on topic. :thumb: