The best is whatever you prefer. There is no intellectual way to establish actual factual superiority without measurements and these forums generally decline that pathway when it is presented. This is an emotional experience that cannot be assessed and evaluated by cold, unfeeling machines.
So -- we pirouette endlessly basking in polysyllabics and wielding cliches and formulae to no end whatsoever. Macrojack, it may interest you to know that those cold unfeeling machines have been used to measure the reactions in human brains to musical reproduction. This work was/is being done by Dr. Herbert Melcher, of Noble Prize fame. He found that as musical reproduction contains more and more artifacts that violate our human perceptual rules, that the processing of the music moves from the emotional centers (limbic system) of the brain to the cerebral cortex. This is why some systems evoke toe-tapping and others do not. Based on this work and research I have done as well, I do not agree *entirely* with what you stated in the quote. What the 'best' is has to do with how well the equipment is able to conform to human perceptual rules, both known and unknown. I thought you might find it interesting that Dr. Melcher has actually been getting objective numbers on the subjective experience :) |
Good news, Ralph.
I for one would be grateful if the doctor would just measure us and lets know what we like so that these interminable debates could cease. |
Y'know, you probably *could* do it that way... lol :) |
Atmasphere, How can you quantify that flat frequency response of the "voltage paradigm" is as close as it gets to obeying hearing rules, and just exactly what are these rules and who made them? How can you dismiss the flat frequency response as though it has little merit? Many manufactures of "voltage paradigm" speakers consider box and driver resonance with regard to it's impedance curve. How or why would a "voltage paradigm" speaker ignore non-clipping harmonic distortion as a frequency response variation any more or less than any other speaker? If the ear is more sensitive to this, at exactly just what levels does it become an issue? Certainly if this were the case, one could measure it and graph it in the correct context.
While one might hear differing degrees of brightness with different gear, with similar measurements, how can we definitively determine the cause?
An amplifier is not required to use loop negative feedback, to obtain constant voltage charateristics. Even if it does, judicious use can be provide benefits that outweigh the negatives. Again exactly just how much of this distortion needs to be present to become objectionable. If we can't measure it, how do we know it's there, and if we're sure how much is there, how can we presume to know it's the causation? Many users of "power paradigm" speakers use amplifiers with loop negative feed back. Some users of "voltage paradigm" speakers use amplifiers that don't use loop negative feedback.
We still haven't determined at exactly what levels of feedback "violates hearing rule". And in that many users of efficient speakers use amplifiers that use negative feedback, and that some users of less efficient speakers use amplifiers that don't use negative feedback, negates this argument with regards to why efficient speakers are best.
I would argue that deviations from flat frequency response is distortion, and can be easily heard. Again these "hearing rules" have yet to be defined as to actual tolerances. You have not explained why a "power paradigm" speaker would be more intrinsically inclined to placing a greater value on the hearing rules than "voltage paradigm" is.
I disagree with the assertion that "voltage paradigm" pays little attention to hearing rules. I would argue that there are more "voltage paradigm" speakers than "power paradigm" speakers that can more closely achieve wave form fidelity.
As I've explained, the logic is not so obvious that "power paradigm" equipment is more able to obey human hearing rules, because the hearing rules haven't been quantified. Without quantification, we can't assume causation.
There has been no establishment of fact that "voltage paradigm" fundamentaly abuses hearing rules.
That higher efficiency speakers are more reactive is not a good thing. Many users of horns use amplifiers that employ feed back and some users of "voltage paradigm" speakers use amplifiers that don't employ feed back. I have heard horns used with amplifiers that claim not to use feed back sound shrill and honky, and I've heard horns with with amplifiers that don't deny the use of feed back sound shrill and honky.
My point is that one can use amplifiers without little or no feed back with less reactive drivers. A speaker with good specs can sound good. If one can measure the rules of human hearing, why aren't they?
Headphones have their place, but they hardly sound like real music.
The cross-overs typically used in a lot of horn speakers are typically incapable of producing wave form fidelity.
Thank you for your contribution(s), but I'm afraid my idea of proof requires a lot more. |
Unsound just face the fact not a horn on Earth your bias would let you enjoy. So why not just enjoy what you own and give the horn owners a break? Most of what you post is unsupported by any fact. Just your opinion and personal bias. We get it you hate any loudspeaker that's horn based. I do not think these forum threads are going to change your mind or your posts change the mind of horn owners so why persist? Are you lonely bored just like to stir up things to please yourself. Please tell us why?? |
1) I disagree about horns efficient = more dynamic based on actually hearing them. Yes, they can play LOUDER as they are more efficient but as for actual dynamic contrast (difference between musical peaks) ATC active 100's were far more dynamic and more punch.
2) I use relatively inefficient drivers but have NO crossover to absorb power. So there is more to it than just driver efficiency. Take a look at how much power Thiel, with their elaborate 1st order x-overs, need. |
Unsound, you've asked a lot of questions and it may take a bit to answer them all. I think first it needs to be understood that human hearing/perceptual rules are understood much better today than they were 20, 30 and 40 years ago. I may have suggested this before, but if not, the first thing to understand is how we perceive volume. One of the most important indicators to the human ear are the odd ordered harmonics, the 5th, 7th and 9th. Now that is easy to prove, all you need is a sine/square wave generator, an amplifier, a speaker, and a VU meter. You listen to the sine wave and set the VU to 0 VU. Then you switch to square and as best you can, set the speaker to what seems to be the same volume. You will find that to do so, the reading on the VU meter will be a good 20-25 db down. Other members of the 'gon have done this in the past, FWIW. Square waves are composed entirely of odd ordered harmonics. This simple test shows that we are more sensitive to them than we are the fundamental sine wave at over 100 times more energy. Now we have known since the 1950s that the addition of loop negative feedback enhances odd ordered distortions. I think I have pointed you to Norman Crowhurst's work on the subject in the past, if you have not read it, it would be a good idea to do so now because otherwise its like you missed a lesson in school. http://www.tubebooks.org/technical_books_online.htmscroll down a ways, there are 3 volumes available as a free download. Pay particular attention to the chapters on negative feedback and the methods he uses to chart the Nyquist diagrams! People have ascribed a lot to the sound of tubes and transistors; but I am here to say that the the very audible effects of 'bloom' that is a common audiophile term is really the effect of distortion. The 'brightness' of transistors is also an effect of distortion- in both cases this is easy enough to prove as you can put the amps on the bench and not measure any differences in frequency response, yet the effects can be heard on many speakers. The ear treats distortion as frequency response variation. Its that simple. So if you want the presentation to be neutral, the amp can't make distortion. Now if that were the case, then I would have no issue with the voltage paradigm as it would then insure flat frequency response. But the reality is that amps *do* make distortion, so the Voltage Paradigm will fail at that goal. Its my position that the effects of distortion are often more audible than frequency response variation. Anyone familiar with speaker design already knows how important the room is in any system, and how the speakers are often designed to work in a room. It is the room itself that guarantees that flat frequency response will not be realized, but our ear/brain system has a means of adjusting to the acoustics of the room. You might want to read some of the works of Dr. Earl Geddes on this one. So- I have given you some homework. BTW, don't discount Crowhurst simply because he was writing in the 1950s. A good deal of the technology you hear today is based on that foundation. |
The Thiel's often times do have elaborate 1'st order cross-overs, but not because 1'st order cross-overs are inherently elaborate unto themsleves, just the opposite is true. Thiels cross-overs are more elaborate because they take into account things like box and driver concerns, as well as to minimize impedance swings. Combined with suitable multi drives it allows the speakers to provide more of the available music in a more accurate, smoother fashion. With high powered amps readily available, I think the efforts are worth it. |
JohnK, as my post was clearly addressed, I was responding to Atmasphere's post. Once again, you drag your professional agenda into the mix, ignoring the title and content of the thread in an effort to discount my contributions to this forum. |
I've read that the human ear does not have flat response but rather is most sensitive in certain range of the audio spectrum associated with brightness.
Atmasphere, is this what you are referring to when you talk about hearing rules?
If so, seems to me that this is then a natural artifact of human hearing. It makes sense to take that into account when designing audio gear it would seem to me, but I would think there are many ways to adjust to that. It either sounds good or not. There is not a single technical approach that can accomplish this it seems to me. A flat frequency response would still seem to be desirable in order to allow our ears to hear the way they are designed without a bias introduced in the signal. Chose your distortion. It is always there to some extent. |
Atmasphere, thank you again for your considered response. I like most others here, don't have access to such equipment. If this data is so readily available, why isn't it routinely being published?
I might not completely understand what your suggesting, with re: to speakers and square waves, but to my knowledge the only readily available commercial speakers that can accurately reproduce square waves would not be considered "high efficiency". You still have not established at what exact amounts or degrees that we find these distortions audibly objectionable. If they are measurable, regardless of how tiny they may be, we can blow the graph up to demonstrate comparisons on just how relative it is, and then verify it.
I did read the link you previously provided re: Norman Cromwell and within it Mr. Cromwell suggests that some feedback can be beneficial, and goes on to caution not to overuse it. It would appear to me that vast majority of amplifiers with any intentions of appealing to the "high end, high fidelity" marketplace follows this advice.
One can not automatically extrapolate that the differences one hears in speakers with amplifiers that measure the same is due to amplifier feedback. There are too many other possible causes.
Let's see the graphs demonstrating these distortions, and proof dismissing other possible causes, rather than assuming they are the root cause.
It is my position that, depending of course on the degree of distortion in frequency response, and we are talking about loudspeakers here, where there are gross differences in frequency response, frequency response distortions are more audible.
No argument with re: to room response, but that is something all together different than efficiency or inefficiency unto itself. I have read some Earl Geddes ideas, but there are too many examples that don't seem to fit into his theories.
Though the burden of proof wasn't mine, I already completed your homework assignment, and it didn't validate your claims.
It would appear to me that your asserting that the differences that you described as being measurably tiny, though in your opinion ultimately important, in amplifier distortions, and the ease in which a loudspeaker can accomodate such as amplifier, swamp what ever differences in frequency response linearity and range, dispersion charateristics, waveform fidelity, and self made noise other wise inherent in loudspeakers. I just don't hear it that way. I hear it just the opposite way. IME, less efficient speakers tend to conform better to the way I hear things, even if those speakers are mated to an amplifier that might or might not have small amounts of feedback. Interestingly enough, many who have efficient speakers that might more easily mate with an amplifier without feedback choose amplifiers with feedback. That is not to say that I am endorsing feedback in amplifiers, just that compatibility with an amplifier lacking feedback is not an important enough criterion alone to choose loudspeakers by. Furthermore, even if it was, one could conceivably still use such an amplifier with inefficient loudspeakers. |
I stand by my post unsound your post above insists all horns honk are shrill have issues in crossover and all headphones do not sound like real music wheres your proof of such absolutes? All untrue highly biased subjective comments not based in any fact. But that's how you roll. We understand your love for vintage thiels and that's fine but when you insist on absolutism that seems like a desperate attempt to make some sort of point it does make me wonder. |
Unsound,
It`s clear you have found an audio niche that satisfies your taste, High power amps with NFB mated to inefficient speakers, be happy. Others find this type of approach less than appealing and inferior. Thus they will prefer another pathway. We get it unsound, we really do get it. |
I was interested in coming back to this thread out of curiosity. Same stuff going on. Same individuals. I for one will make another momentary departure, once again, and spend my very minimum available, and, precious time, listening to my horn based system, bringing me great listening satisfaction. So to all the music listeners here, enjoy ! Till next time. Mr D |
Charles1dad, FYI, my amp has no global feedback, and my speakers are moderately sensitive. Furthermore, if I heard something that I liked better that didn't conform to those parameters, I wouldn't hesitate to change. It should also be clear that others here have found their niche' too. My posts are responses to their posts, though you haven't posted how you get their perspective, how you really get their perspective. Perhaps, it's because you've already bought into that perspective, and you'd rather read confirmation of your choice than conversation about other choices? Unlike some of them, my income isn't affected by those choices, and I don't declare that my preferences are factually better. |
Hi Unsound,
I don`t need or seek confirmation for my preferences and I hope this is also true in your case. I`m sure we both agree there`re numerous ways to achieve good home audio.
You just seem to be on some sort of crusade, if I`m mistaken, my sincere apologies.
Best Regards, |
JohnK, What I posted was that I've heard horns sound shrill with both ss and tube amps, in response to Atmasphere's assertion that horns can sound shrill. I posted that headphones hardly sound like live music. If you consider that as an absolute, so be it. If any one cares to sincerely publicly assert otherwise, I'll modify my post. Your upset that those posts are "all untrue, highly subjective comments not based in any fact"? Really? Those are the examples your choosing to typify how I roll? Really? My posts are hardly based upon absolutism, in fact they are in response, yes, response to those who've made absolute claims. No wonder, your in wonderment, if you can't understand that. You once again assert that I am highly biased. I don't gain any monetary profit from my posts. You on the hand, more often than not post on those matters that afford you potential financial compensation, without the typical Audiogoner courtesy of disclosing your professional status. I'm highly biased? Ha |
Thanks, Mr.D, that was really helpful. |
Charles1dad, I think we are in agreement, and that is exactly the point of my posts. Best Regards, |
It's a synergy thing. I never thought I could get dynamics like my friends Klipshorn system powereed by 3 watt flea SET amps. But then I got a pair if grossly inefficient Apogees powered by a McCormack DNA 500. Yes, I have those dynamics and detail and just awesome sound and imaging that he cannot hoe to achieve with his Klipshorns.
2 polar opposites both aiming at great sound. yes, you can have great sound without super effecient speakers. It's jusy pairing the components necessary to achieve that which is tricky. |
Unsound like all folks in the industry if one clicks on my sign on it mentions my busines so I follow forum rules.I do wonder again why you insist I have to follow different rules then the other industry professionals who you chat with in this very thread? As for bias you even agree that your on a crusade see Chales1dad post which you agreed too. I'm not the only one who tires of your crusade against horn based designs. |
JohnK, other folks in the industry either use their business name, provide a disclaimer, or get taken to task for failing to. I'm sure I'm not the only one doesn't click on every sign in name of every post. Why do you continualy refuse to comply with the common courtsey of applying such a disclaimer?
Once again, you demonstrate your lack of literacy. Posting that I had a point to my posts, is hardly the same as declaring a "crusade" or an indication of a bias. Once again, my posts on this thread have been responses to other claims, and not a "crusade" against horn based designs. I really don't give a damn if your tired of your misconceptions. |
Unsound this may be a bit too much for you too grasp but I see at least 2 other industry professionals in this thread alone who are not following your self imposed rule against industry professionals not going over and beyond the rules to identify themselves as such. And your the one who agreed your on the crusade against horn designs not not I. If your unable to operate the functions of this forum IE clicking to see more info on poster I see only one recourse take it up with audiogon. I do not make the rules for this forum but I do follow them maybe you should also? And you do know it costs money to operate a forum I see you do not contribute at all to this site sad. |
JohnK, perhaps you could identify them. You will not find one declaration by me of going on a "crusade". I do follow the rules. Some forms of cultural etiquette exist without rules. Have you now become the CFO of Audiogon?
Try as you might to twist it, it always seems to snap back in your face. Save your face, give it up. Rather than attacking me, perhaps you can get back to the subject at hand. |
I like most others here, don't have access to such equipment. If this data is so readily available, why isn't it routinely being published?
I might not completely understand what your suggesting, with re: to speakers and square waves, but to my knowledge the only readily available commercial speakers that can accurately reproduce square waves would not be considered "high efficiency". Unsound, To answer the immediate question, IMO its because this information is not very convenient. From the rest of this quote I feel that you *might* be missing my point... I mention this test because it can be done with almost any speaker, as the 0VU value is not particularly demanding. It is just a very simple demonstration of a principle of human perceptual rules, and one that is easily duplicated. IOW, its a proof. The point of it is that we use odd ordered harmonics to tell how loud a sound is. That's how our ear/brain system is wired and is true of all humans. So from my point of view, if our ability to tell how loud a sound is has to do with odd ordered harmonics (already present in the signal) then it is simple logic that we do everything we can to avoid distorting them since the ear is more sensitive to them then just about anything else. That of course is my conclusion and stand, but it is only simple logic. Reducing odd ordered harmonics is also why I mess around with tubes, as its a lot harder to do the same thing with transistors. That is a preference on my part. However I do not like many of the colorations of tubes (read: lush midrange associated with 2nd harmonic); I prefer things to be neutral. BTW its Norman Crowhurst, not Cromwell... If you look at his writings you find that he does not eschew negative feedback, but he also does point out its weaknesses. At one point he talks about how when feedback is added, the noise floor of the amplifier circuit then contains harmonics up to the 81st, plus inharmonic information related to intermodulations at the feedback node. In fact he points out that this *is* the noise floor of the amplifier. (BTW, Chaos Theory also predicts this very same phenomena. If you read his books, you saw the formula for feedback in an amplifier too...) Now I am not sure exactly when the perceptual rule known as 'masking' became understood, but this is the rule that made mp3s possible, and is the idea that louder sounds mask the presence of quieter sounds. The masking rule is why we cannot hear sounds below the harmonic noise floor created by feedback. Now it happens that if you have a noise floor consisting of hiss alone, that you can hear about 15-20 db into that noise floor (I suspect that this peculiar exception to the masking rule is the result of necessities of evolution, as wind and hiss are very similar). Whatever the reason, this does seem to be one explanation of why an amp without feedback can seem to have more low level detail than an amp with that employs feedback. BTW, I think we are getting a bit off-topic- is this a subject for a different thread? |
Atmasphere, thank you for your follow up. On some level I agree with you, I just want to know at what point does pursuing this one consideration of the many, lose sight of the total goal. I still don't have the answer to that. I still think that the methods you suggest can be done with ss, and it appears that it has been for some time.
Sorry about the Cromhurst spelling. I've recently been reading about English/Dutch history and must have carried that over.
I agree, we do seem to be getting a bit off topic. On some level that has been one of my points, these considerations unto themselves don't neccesarilly dictate what makes the "...best speaker?". |
Unsound- certainly! On some level I agree with you, I just want to know at what point does pursuing this one consideration of the many, lose sight of the total goal. That is a matter left to the speaker designers! I can say though that they have been getting some impressive results in that regard in the last decade or so, so much that they won me over- before I got my current speakers I really did not think horns were 'high end'. Boy was I wrong. |
I have yet to hear any examples to win me over. |
I don't understand how a 4" driver, even if has high efficiency due to horn loading, can move enough air to have much dynamics. A 12" driver has TEN times to surface area, not to mention much, much higher Xmax.
(Forgive me but I have not read every post in detail) |
"I don't understand how a 4" driver, even if has high efficiency due to horn loading, can move enough air to have much dynamics."
Its all relative and depend on room size but basically teh answer is it can't compete in an apples/apples test.
Unsound, even if you consider them deficient, what are the best sounding horns you have heard?
The best I have heard are custom GoTo horns. I did not get to hear them over an extended period of time, but what I heard was quite good and with my eyes closed I do not think I could have guessed they were horns other than the fact that the dynamics were superlative. |
Mapman, all thing considered, probably the Klipsch Forte. |
Unsound, what was the rest of that system like? |
I've head them in many, mostly modest systems, though not in some time. The reason I mentioned them was; they were inexpensive speakers, that didn't take up too much space, that could be driven by a cheap receiver, and still fill a large space with nearly full range music without completely embarrassing themselves. Very few others could do that, without costing significantly more (percentage wise). Not my cup of tea, but could work for some others with a large space, on a tight budget, that didn't want overly large boxes dominating the room, and not interested in too much fussing. |
Yes the biggest problem I have with horns is the ones that sound really good to me are big and expensive at which point they tend to lose their benefit overall for me.
If I could fit the better ones I have heard and afford them as well, they would be a viable option that I would strongly consider.
I've also considered Forte's in that they are not overly expensive, get good accolades, and actually might fit into my house somewhere someday. But I do not expect them to become my #1 go to speaker. |
BTW, Unsound, if you have only heard the newer OHM Walshes on similar modest systems, you probably have not heard them at their best and I could more easily understand your not being wowed with those either. |
I actually liked those more than the big expensive ones. |
Horns are a tremendously misunderstood and under-examined speaker option.
Maybe the following article will help some of you if you take the time to read it carefully.
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/hornographic1/1.html
There are many audio designers, inventors and tinkerers who have, by turns, examined every option at every level and facet of sound reproduction. They are the pioneers, the ground breakers, the independent thinkers who make new discoveries and refine older ones.
Unlike established conventional companies who are constantly peddling Mark II, Revised or Signature versions to a captive audience via bought reviews, these guys operate below the headlines doing the real work.
While it cannot be said that they all ultimately gravitate to horns, too many do just that for us to ignore the option completely.
Bill Woods is one of the most sought after loudspeaker design consultants in the world. He works for many companies on all manner of designs but ultimately the best product he can offer is a horn. Chris Brady is the ultimate DIYer. He created Teres Turntables from his home and has built his entire system with the exception of the speakers. When I met him he had EdgarHorns. Noe he has the Cogent Field Coil system, designed by Steve Schell and Rich Drysdale with design and construction assistance from Bill Woods. If you are not aware of Jonathan Weiss of Oswald's Mill fame, you really don't have a clue about "cutting edge". The best is yet to come but you won't find out about it in Stereophile or TAS. You have to open your mind and be willing to abandon cliche wisdom in order to benefit from the many possibilities which go unnoticed by the smug and conceited.
Horns may not be for you. There are many situations where they plainly do not fit. However, if you start thinking more about how to make them work for you and stop thinking that they embody inconvenience, expense and disappointment, you will discover a kind of sound reproduction your current speakers cannot ever achieve. |
