@thespeakerdude wrote:
There was nothing rude in a teacher correcting a student who has made an error ...
A convenient pressumption to make the narrative fit to your needs. Come on..
How would you listen for transparency? What does it sound like? Have you heard it before? Do you know what relative distortion sounds like in a speaker over any given frequency range? at a particular sound intensity? What would you use to listen for it? Do you know the pedigree of that recording and the signal / processing chain to know the level of transparency from the time the sound was created till it comes off the recording medium?
I'm shooting sparrows with cannons in my systems approach in several areas, and don't have to proof nor explain anything to you with regard to my discerning abilities. The questions you're asking however tells me you may be working from a physically limited framework where it least some of the mentioned parameters will be all the more challenging and press upon themselves to be addressed - more "creatively," even.
Again, you haven't yet addressed my plead: give me/us something to go by with a range of speakers that meet your criteria in being fairly faithful to the signal presented to them in a given acoustic environment - then we'll see what you're up to and what it really amounts to. It should be clear to most that you're knowledgeable, but so far it mostly comes down as show-off and telling people what they're missing out on. I surely mind being a bitch to that attitude of yours.
When you understand the intricacies of driving a traditional dynamic driver or AMT in the most linear possible fashion, at all signal levels, with complex waveforms, perhaps your attitude will be warranted.
No, you need to show something by example here.
.. and probably most people's concept of amplifier/driver is a simple linear voltage based amplifier perhaps with some frequency response modification. Without writing a book, that is a traditional view that is not the future of active speakers. Even active subwoofer drivers with velocity/position feedback already break that mold.
That's a preposterous claim before even realizing what's here. The future of active configuration is first making it more known and widespread in its varieties to the users in domestic sound reproduction. There are bundled solutions. Outboard. Pre-assembled. DIY. Small and large iterations to pursue - the latter if one truly chooses. You want to jump the fence from passive to your way of "shine a light" active as the only thing that really does it - in what form or shape? Details, please. There's a lot in between or even beyond. I've chosen DIY outboard-active from a relatively unrestricted package physically. It goes to show the importance of physics with subs in particular; below the Schroeder frequency it's about capacity, proper design/construction and implementation mainly. The larger the cumulative cone area the less cone movement is needed for a given SPL, and in effect less inertia build-up, more headroom, lower distortion, ease of reproduction and all that jazz. Not to mention attention to room-loading with DBA's, column sub solutions and/or more extensive room correction digitally. Servo drive needn't apply here, not that the effort isn't well-intended. And so on..
|
|
@kota1 --
Cool video. It's the first time I've heard of 21" drivers being referred to as "kick subs," but it makes sense looking at that 80" beast of an über infrasonics woofer..!
|
So, this thread is really about active, bundled speakers. While all active speakers are powered, the reverse scenario is not always the case; a 'powered' speaker strictly just refers to a passively configured ditto but with the amp (plus of course the passive filter) built into the speaker.
@johnk wrote:
Great for pro audio use and in studios or for those who want simplicity in a system but most audiophiles want outboard amplification. Also many don’t want to bin a speaker setup because one amp failed inside. My experience with powered speakers failing is fairly vast and while with a few I could repair or replace amps most are junk after just 1 amp fails in a stereo pair. I have built actives but I outboard amplification because of this.
Indeed; active can be with outboard amplification, and obviously also DSP/electronic cross-over and DAC.
Most by default assume and refer to active as a bundled solution, which it needn't be. As mentioned previously one could, with a worthwhile distinction, refer to it as an active speaker or an active system, with the former being the bundled solution and the latter an "active with separate, outboard components." So long as the cross-over is placed prior to amplification it is - by definition - active.
@kota1 wrote:
If you like to tinker, great. Tinker with the front end. But why tinker matching amps, drivers, and speaker cables when the engineer who DESIGNED the speaker can do it for you at a much lower cost?
You're restricted having only preassembled, bundled active speakers to choose from. You could do anything really with all sizes and types of speakers choosing an outboard, active solution. Of course this way it's up to each to handle all aspects, but with dedication it's hardly an insurmountable challenge to any existing complexity.
Moreover complete pro segment speaker systems are available sans passive XO's, or you could simply rid passive "hifi" speakers of their XO's and start from scratch with active config. and DSP filter settings. Many an audiophile love to tinker with a range of aspects with their setup, so why not take it a step further and master your own filter settings?
And I second the praise for Meyer Sound speakers.
|
@kota1 wrote:
Bryton sells non bundled active speaker systems
Indeed, one of the very manufacturers doing this. I wish more would follow..
|
|
@ronboco wrote:
Why does an onboard amp in an active speaker pair better than separate amplification ?
In an active config. an onboard amp by itself doesn’t pair better than an outboard ditto. Remember, active can be an outboard solution as well.
Are the drivers different than a passive speaker?
Not necessarily.
Are the crossovers different than in a passive speaker?
Yes, active XO’s are placed prior to amplification on signal level, not on the amp’s output side between that and the drivers taking the full power.
It seems the only thing active does is eliminate the need for an external amp.
No, primarily active eliminates the passive XO between the amp and drivers, and this gives the amp(s) much better control over the drivers sans intervening passive XO components, which in turn has the drivers perform more accurately to what’s fed to them by the dedicated amp sections.
@ghasley wrote:
An example would be the speaker designer could match the appropriate amp to the appropriate speaker driver to achieve their design goals optimally.
While amp matching certainly isn’t irrelevant, its importance - in some respects - has been blown a bit out of proportion, if you ask me. Overall, active config. also allows the designer to downscale amps, while getting away with it, being the output power is more effectively used sans passive XO’s, and they also perform (i.e.: sound) better actively. As a bundled solution that comes in handy with more compact designs.
Not trying to diminish amp matching, as per your next quoted paragraph below, but often it means allowing the designer to potentially downscale while dedicating amp sections to their specific driver dittos.
An extreme mismatch example would be for an active two way where the amp driving the top end was a class d plate amp and the low frequency driver driven by a class A 10 watt amp.
Indeed. It’s what I do myself in my outboard config. active setup; lower wattage class A from the lower to central mids on up, high power class TD taking over down to the upper bass, and high power class A/B from here to 20Hz. Common wisdom, very generally, may dictate class D variants to the lowest octaves, but I’ve found using my class A/B amp (MC² Audio) to serve better from 20 to ~85Hz and having a bigger, more positive effect on the remaining frequency spectrum above in comparison to using my class TD Lab.Gruppen amp here, which is no slouch either, I might add. Interestingly the MC² Audio amp is the better full-performer vs. the Lab.Gruppen (but not the Belles class A, which is the best of the bunch), to my ears, and yet the overall sonic picture has it serving better in the subs region - go figure.
That’s what an outboard solution allows you, to use external quality amps and experiment with their implementation in the respective frequency spectrums.
|
@donavabdear wrote:
... I don’t think this is controversial at all, I would say that an amp doesn’t have to be designed for the speaker inside the cabinet of the speaker its self but for the system to be it’s best the speaker and amp must be designed for each other. Who could disagree with this idea if the speaker has 5 drivers 2 drivers and the crossovers are passive, active or hybrid the amplifier may not be able to be all that it needs to be for that speaker, amps designed for LF are different than amps designed for HF.
While I’m somewhat in agreement here I’d like to tempt your position of the importance of amp-speaker matching. What exactly is entailed here from your point of view - are we speaking amps matched for very specific drivers in their respective passbands, or is it a more broadly laid out approach with importance of damping factor and high power for LF, less so for MF, quality of lower, less negative feedback wattages for HF and such? In any case an outboard active solution offers the opportunity to go about a variation of matching possibilities between amps and driver sections not only bound by an engineering approach, but one that can also challenge a typically accepted scenario or simply choosing any path one prefers with a wide range of quality outboard amps to whatever speakers may be used. In my own setup I prefer the lower DF (and better full-range) but still power heavy amp for the subs and the higher DF and even more power savvy amp for the midbass section vs. the revers config., just as an example, even though I only really use a fraction of the power available in both cases. The lower wattage class A amp stays on the top section, I might add..
Again, what is meant by amp-speaker matching? More crudely: from one perspective it could be a scenario where the respective inboard amp is designed to do only so much and not more from whatever is asked of it in its frequency span, and yet as best as possible for its task within a given budget. From another it’s an interaction with a specific driver that’s intricately tailored to do something more than if the very driver and its specs hadn’t been taken more closely into consideration in accordance with the amp. I’m inclined to the believe the former scenario is more prevalent while being one that’s still a preferred approach vs. a passive setup, and yet going with an outboard active solution the bar can be raised even further to accommodate each individual’s taste and specific acoustics, while not least being given the opportunity to use class A amps, etc. Certainly as it regards active configuration I don’t buy into the bundled, inboard approach necessarily having any inherent advantages compared to an outboard ditto.
|
@mijostyn wrote:
@phusis , I am inclined to agree entirely. The best amps I have ever heard have all been Class A at least up to a certain output. These amps can not be put into an active speaker because of the heat they generate. They are forced to use Class D amps for this reason and I have yet to hear a Class D amp I would purchase. Even Class AB amps if run hard are going to generate enough heat to make an active speaker very uncomfortable.
Indeed. My main issue of sorts is buying into the notion of the degree of which amps of bundled, active speakers are supposedly "engineered" and specifically tailored to a range of drivers and their respective sections in ways that couldn’t as well be accommodated with an outboard solution. Finding outboard amps to properly fit driver sections in an active setup is perfectly realizable, and if anything such amps are more than up for the task (to a degree even that some may call "shooting sparrows with cannons," but different persons/businesses different benchmarks), arguably in some contrast to the core aspect of "tailoring" amps to drivers in bundled solutions and what it’s mainly about here: shaving off what’s believed unnecessary and down to what is merely enough - both because you can (that is, only to a certain extent compared to an outboard config.), for reasons of keeping expenses at bay, and also due to potential thermal issues with all that implies and the amp topology used. What’s left in regards to fitting an amp section with a driver ditto can as well be handled with the careful choice of an outboard approach, with even better amps and what fits a given listener’s preferences and specific acoustics to boot.
"Activeness" can be applied to any system just by the addition of the right processor like the new DEQX units or the Trinnov Amethyst. Then you have the ultimate control over what your system is doing. The DEQX Pre8 has a full two channel 4 way crossover. It will individually control 8 amplifier channels and apply room control to all 8 channels.
Yes. However, few operate with or are aware of active configuration as an outboard solution, and so in that regard certainly quite a few audiophiles are "confused." Or, they may simply not be interested in this approach if it has any bearing to them as a possibility and option. I’m not saying it’s something one enters lightly as a plug-and-play solution, and perhaps the mere thought of that challenge or obstacle even is what keeps many from giving it a try. With my preferences in speakers I would feel restricted with the range of bundled, active speakers out there, not that there aren’t very capable offerings among them like ATC and others.
|
@thespeakerdude wrote:
One issue is that all speakers (that I am aware of) designed to be driven with an off the shelf amplifier have a cross over that cannot be bypassed to directly connect to the driver. Hence any external amplifier is handicapped by the crossover.
My context above is active configuration. Active isn’t defined per se from being a bundled speaker package with build-in amps, electronic cross-over/DSP and, potentially, DAC’s, but that the filtration occurs prior to amplification on signal level (typically sans intervening passive cross-over parts between the amps and drivers that would act as a protection means here), which can as well be attained with outboard components as it could an inboard ditto. Outboard is only outboard; it needn’t say anything about the configuration. You could have a bundled speaker package with build-in amps and passive cross-over, and yet that’s what’s called a powered speaker - passively configured at that. My 3 outboard power amps are all connected to their respective driver sections without any intervening cross-over parts between them and the drivers, with each amp being fed with a different line level signal from the digital Xilica XO/DSP telling it which frequency span to deliver to its driver section. That’s fully active configuration for you and any other around here, and it means controlling each driver section much more effectively instead of looking into a passive cross-over first.
In your reply to poster @mijostyn:
"Activeness" can be applied to any system just by the addition of the right processor like the new DEQX units or the Trinnov Amethyst. Then you have the ultimate control over what your system is doing.
"You have full control over your system, but not over the drivers in the speaker."
Yes, you do have full control over the drivers - if the context implies the omission of a passive cross-over with dedicated amp channels looking directly into each driver section. Any "next level direct driver control"-claim (my own wording) essentially put forth by the bundled active speaker manufacturers, if it were to distance themselves from a claimed inferior outboard solution, actively configured as well, would seem dubious to me, whereas they would be right to do so with a passively configured speaker by comparison.
|
@mijostyn wrote:
@phusis , trust me on this one. Adding a processor like the Trinnov or DEQX is in no way shape or form a "plug and play" solution. They try to market them as being simple to set up, but if you are perfectionistic they are not. You have to experiment and learn to get the most out of them. It must have taken me 2-3 years to get my TacT tuned the way I wanted the system to sound. Most of this was learning manage the power of such a sonic tool and get the most out of it. It is far more complex and involving than any "active" speaker I am familiar with.
Absolutely agree, it’s a process for sure and not for the faint of heart. Very much worth it, though.
You are right about amps. Any amp can drive any driver, the question is how well. That choice can be made by any knowledgeable person. I do not like my choices being made by other people.
People here seem to make a fuss about amp-driver matching with active configuration in particular, but while it lends a lot more opportunities here it’s also the far lesser issue per se vs. matching an amp with a passively configured speaker. A paradoxical way to assess amp-driver/speaker matching here, if you ask me.
@thespeakerdude wrote:
@phusis , I am not sure we are understanding each other.
I could put the active portion of the speaker in the speaker or in an outboard box. That much is obvious.
Check.
What I can’t do is replace my electronics with anyone else’s electronics. As noted, the connection to the driver may require 4 wires (or more), and only I, the MFR knows the intricate details of what is needed to optimize how that speaker element is driven and I won’t be sharing that. That is I/P.
Should make sense, though not really interested in the "secret sauce." I’ve had my own share of intricacies to dig up - while fairly straight forward coming down to it - getting my own active setup sounding the way it does now, and it’s been a lengthy process I’ve enjoyed, and still does. Every worthwhile permutation in hardware config. potentially requires subtly resetting filter values and speaker placement - no big mysteries there.
The other case I noted is multiple similar elements being driven to accomplish a specific function. That is far more than just adding some external amps to replace internal ones. It is like saying just give me the car, and I will put my own engine in at that point.
You’re making it sound as if using external amps in an active configuration, certainly in my case, is a careless and crude affair, but that’s really only assuming the worst of it while promoting your own business of an inboard solution as that which harbors the best of active. For you information I didn’t replace anything, I merely worked from an outset and over time, a few years by now, have gotten to a place where the amps used, their place in the driver configuration (with quite a few permutations with a range of amps), speaker placement, digital filter settings and overall synergy in my acoustic surroundings forms into a sonic outcome that easily compares to any preassembled and bundled active speaker I’ve heard, and should I say handily beats them in vital areas with the accommodation to physics afforded with an outboard solution - something that inboards can only dream of as per their typical incarnations. And no, it’s not about loud per se..
@kota1 wrote:
per Andrew Jones:
Each amplifier is matched to the driver, and only has to operate over a limited frequency range. It’s operating into a simpler impedance, so it’s not going to have high-current demands. Also, the temporal characteristics of music change with frequency. High frequencies require very little average power, but have a lot of peaks. Bass requires much higher average power, but has far fewer peaks. You can match the amplifier to those characteristics as well.
Nothing here at odds with my own approach to matching amps with driver sections - makes sense. Thanks for posting this.
I like giving this control to the speaker designer to match the amp to the driver because it sucks when you misfire.
How, or to which degree would it "misfire" with an outboard active config. and finding the proper amps for the driver sections here - have you tried it? I mean, it’s not going to blow up. It’s about perspective; matching amps with drivers actively makes for less of a variation between the amps vs. passively, while harnessing the bigger potential of amps used actively. On the other hand an active config. is more revealing with regard to source changes, and cables as well.
I have a beautiful Parasound Zamp but it never got my JBL 230’s to really open it up. Swapped it out for a Carver with more power and tracking down conversion and BOOM wall to wall sound stage.
JBL Studio 230’s, so passive speakers? As I said, with passive speakers the variations between amps and how they’re (usually not) impervious to load differs a lot, while reflecting perceived sonic presentation accordingly.
This is not fun for me to burn cash chasing down a match when I can get it pretty much perfect in a bi-amp (or even tri amp) off the shelf, first try, with a good active speaker. YMMV.
An outboard active solution by contrast isn’t plug-and-play, that’s for sure, but for those willing to invest the time and effort you’ll most likely find yourself very much rewarded, and with a carte blanche slate to work from. IMHO.
@lonemountain wrote:
Many of the amps talked about favorably here use mostly chinese boards built by machines. How that is so much more comforting than a 100% hand made pure analog amp? ATC amp packs are built better than most of the audio gear out there. There is no magic dust or other hidden process.
Well said.
|
@thespeakerdude wrote:
Careless? Not at all. Crude only in a comparative sense. I don’t think you are understanding the variables that are available though for active speaker implementation.
I know enough to be able to get a great sounding outboard active system with nothing imposed with regard to physical restrictions of speakers. Yours is a business venture with all that entails.
I don’t expect a hobby implementation to compete with a large R&D budget so don’t take offense.
Please let me know about the basic outlay of your (possible range of) speakers, and then we’ll take it from there. Or is that a secret as well? Sounds more like hiding to me, as well as some hollow flaunting a prowess that’s really about trying to make up for what’s likely a physically restricted package and make it appear as if you’re holding the holy grail of audio reproduction - not an atypical position coming from a MFR.
@fred60 wrote:
Ask ATC how much it costs to repair and/or replace the internal amp in a speaker. Or any brand. My Paradigm (great brand btw) subwoofer internal amp died after a decade. It was in auto/on mode for most of its short life. I paid $2500 for it. Paradigm wanted $1750 to replace/repair the internal amp in the sub. I laughed at that. Going to replace it with a REL HT-1205 for $699. My Audio Engine desktop speakers also died after a decade of service. I paid $250 for them, they offered me a 30% discount on buying the next pair. Instead I bought an inexpensive pair of PreSonus speakers, which sound great.
My guess is that ATC would charge quite a bit of cash to repair a blown amp in one of their speakers. Why take the chance that this happens at all? I’d be petrified that one day I wake up to find that one of the speakers isn’t working. Passives you never have that problem, unless you mistakenly blow out a tweeter. I’ve never had that happen over decades of listening. BTW--I’m not against the idea of active speakers, just my take. I have a pair of JL Audio’s for my main rig. Cheers.
ATC speakers are as bomb proof as they come, as well as being the overall best bundled active speakers I’ve heard (certainly the largest models). It’s not a fair comparison with the other brands you mention - to ATC, that is. Indeed I’d feel more secure using active ATC speakers that most any passive setup, and if any issue should occur with the ATC speakers you’d be given a great treatment and service that’s also a very reasonable reflection price-wise relative to the product at hand.
|
I prefer and prioritize having just a left and right front channel with 2-way main speakers + 2 subs. That equates into 6 amp channels from 3 stereo amps with each channel dedicated and directly connected to its specific driver section and just short of 3kW in total per L/R channel (no different from what could, in principle, be done in a bundled solution, except for the need of subs). Sensitivity range from 97 to 111dB’s. Main speakers of my specific choosing, with no restrictions wrt. their size and segment. Subs of my choosing, DIY at that being 20cf. tapped horns aren’t readily available other than from Danley Sound Labs, let alone any domestic MFR. Amps of my choosing, with a pure class A ditto from ~600Hz on up and more prodigious power from class TD and A/B variants on down. Everything measured and tuned to my specific surroundings and sonic preferences. That’s the benefit of an outboard configured active setup, and something a bundled solution (from what’s practically available, certainly in the "hi-fi" realm), no matter how good, can’t replicate.
|
@thespeakerdude wrote:
Hence bracing, The large the panel dimensions, the greater the bracing. A superior shape is of little benefit if we cannot manufacture it, added shipping costs ameliorate the benefit, or it causes difficult in use for the customer. ...
Hence DIY; in principle every design, shape and size (and weight) can be pursued. I’ve gone the horn route with subs where the horn "innards" are elaborate bracings. Large behemoths, but constructed in 13-ply BB with CNC-cut and interlocked panels they’re very sturdy. Further damping can be applied and accommodated as one deems necessary.
Distortion isn’t only cabinet vibrations but as well mechanically induced noise from the direct radiating and exposed woofer(s) during high excursions. Horn-loaded woofer cones, while concealed inside the horn, move very little for a given SPL, potentially both due to high efficiency and the way the woofer cone can have minimum excursion at the tune (via Tapped Horns; not the more traditional Front Loaded Horns where the woofer is usually placed in a sealed chamber). Avoiding mechanically induced noise here is not trivial.
Very few audiophiles have been "exposed" to the sound of horn-loaded subs (or their variants), not least for the reasons you outline as a MFR, which is a shame, because they deliver a very smooth, enveloping and effortless bass reproduction when carefully implemented - certainly audiophile qualities in bass reproduction to aspire to. Their ability to produce truly prodigious SPL’s is part of their perceived prowess here (and so not only about loudness per se), because significant headroom equates into cleaner/less distorted and more relaxed bass.
|
@thespeakerdude wrote:
They may go down to 32Hz, but that is probably with drop-off and high distortion, and if using 2, more room mode excitation. Subs are to reduce distortion, go deep without roll-off, and reduce room mode excitation. Ideally you cross your speakers higher so they are not taxed with frequencies/excursions where they distort.
+1
@mijostyn --
+1
I would not use anything larger than 15" as I think the larger cones are more difficult to control. I have seen slo-mo videos of large cones wobbling instead of moving in pistonic fashion. ...
Some of the high order bandpass designs I’m considering that are equipped with high efficiency, pro 21" neodymium magnet-fitted woofers (crazy powerful, extremely sturdy drivers) wouldn’t see problems with cone wobbling in any domestic setting, let alone in pairs or - God forbid - more. Both the output generated by the front- and back wave of the driver is utilized, and with high eff. to boot cone movement will be kept to a minimum - even at quite staggering SPL’s. These are tuned to offer "no more" than 25Hz honest extension, however (20-ish Hz in-room, plenty for me); if crawling well below 20Hz is needed, not to mention below 15Hz, a steep rise in cone movement is the result, as well as effective enclosure volume to maintain visceral impact. The 15" woofers in my tapped horn subs (also a high eff., high-order bandpass design, tuned just below 25Hz) move only a few mm’s at most at bonkers SPL’s that are viscerally felt. That’s making the most of a given cone area in a design that’s a force multiplier.
@kota1 wrote:
You are overthinking it, many people have 2.0 systems and enjoy them without subs.
Not a all, it just about the benchmark one is setting.
|
@mijostyn wrote:
@phusis , The problem most of us face with subwoofers with normally sized rooms in a residential setting is SIZE. Horn loaded subwoofers would have to be huge to work correctly. Same thing goes for the enclosures required to house a 21" subwoofer. It is much easier and more cosmetically acceptable for most people, myself included, to use multiple smaller drivers is sealed enclosures.
The issue usually is not whether large subs can physically fit into and function properly in residential spaces, but whether one chooses and wills their inclusion. You mention what’s "cosmetically acceptable" to most, and that’s absolutely correct; most don’t want such behemoths in their listening room, let alone shared living ditto. Speaking for myself though with a dedicated space I don’t care about convenience (setting them up) or what’s aesthetically pleasing or not, but just plain and simple functionality - unapologetically. Btw., 1/4 wave horn sub iterations have their size pretty much laid out dictated by the parameters sought, and properly designed as such work wonderfully.
It’s about what works, what is required and the benchmark one sets out to work from. To me what’s no larger than ~20cf. per cab is acceptable and physically doable, and ultimately it pays off with regard to headroom and ease of reproduction.
With modern drivers you can get a 12" driver into a 1.5 cubic foot sealed enclosure and with enough power and digital signal processing you can get it to do just about anything within the limits of your amplifier to work perfectly. I use 8 of them which equals 4 15" drivers or two 18" drivers.
Many ways to skin your cat, sure. Multiple 12"-fitted sealed subs like in your case can be a very effective solution, but I think we can agree on that 4 such subs and the weight class they represent would be more than what many audiophiles dare to embark on. It goes to show that if sufficient pressurization, extension and some measure of headroom is the goal there’s no way around physics and (at least an proximation to) ample displacement.
Where I differ is the want for more efficiency and less excursion (for a given SPL), and that requires even more size, so much so - even with way larger cabs - that it comes at the cost of ultimate extension, unless one sets out to work with ginormous horn subs. What’s the summed volume of your 4 sub cabs, ~15cf.? My two TH subs come in at 40cf. (tuned to just below 25Hz), and yet your solution has the lower knee - at the cost of efficiency, the need for more power and added excursion, of course.
Just as an example what high eff. means power-wise: the blue signal LED’s on my MC² Audio amps (1 for TH subs and 1 for EV bass bin) only flash up when reaching 10W, and even at ref. volume watching movies they remain off. I have to seriously crank it for the LED’s to come to life, and there’s +600W disposable to the subs alone..
In a 16 foot wide room I have no trouble getting flat down to 18Hz where they are rolled of steeply by a digital high pass filter at 84 dB/oct so as not to waste power and piss of the turntable. They are actually boosted 6 dB or so at 20 Hz to simulate the visceral sensation you get at a live concert at more reasonable levels. They are also in perfect phase and time with the main speakers. This is critical if you cross over at 100 Hz like I do and don’t want to know you are listening to subwoofers.
Implementation is key - never doubted you have that well covered, as is obviously the case. I cross just below 85Hz to the subs, and the whole speaker setup incl. subs is treated like a 3-way system, and not just with the subs added on as a secondary implementation/thought without high-passing the mains and other. The subs are high-passed @20Hz - theoretically to protect the drivers, but practically to lower distortion and keep them from working in a frequency range where the design wouldn’t do any good anyway - and filter steepness throughout is 36dB/octave.
@asctim --
Thanks for your post.
I too am running bass horns - front loaded folded bass horns loaded in the corners of the room, with four 18" drivers on each side. My friend designed and built these with me as his shop assistant and employer. There really is something to the effortlessness of that bass.
That’s a seriously capable bass horn setup - kudos. What’s the tune?
Even the best direct radiator bass has a sound of grippy force and power, like something is working hard.
Exactly, I find this to be the case in the sub range in particular, where cone movement can be prodigious. I do run dual 15" high eff. direct radiating mid-woofers per channel covering ~85 to 600Hz, which feels like they’re converted to rockets being rid of most everything below their high-pass point; the cones here move zilch even at close to war volume. However, horn-loading the bass/lower mids in this area with a horn big enough can make wonders.
Horn loaded bass doesn’t require nearly as much power to produce plenty of volume and it comes across somehow as sublime. At a quite loud 30Hz those drivers are barely moving.
+1
At the present moment I’m in the process of moving in to a new place and it will be a while before I can get the bass horns back in action. for now I’m listening with 2 10" conventional subwoofers. They’re way better than not having them and it’s enjoyable - but nowhere near the same. Obviously it would be closer if I had 8 of them in the room stacked in the corners instead of just 2 and they were all 18" instead of 10", so yeah, not a fair comparison.
Hope you’ll be up and running with your 18" octet-loaded bass horns in the foreseeable future. I must be a challenge living with less once used to such an all-out horn bass setup!
But I think the point is cone excursion matters.
+1
|
@lonemountain wrote:
Speaking of subs and rooms, I have to add the general trend toward smaller subs in higher quantity is proving to be a better solution for most rooms and studios. The desire for one big sub creates dominant rooms modes that are a bear to remove with giant nulls and huge peaks.
One doesn't exclude the other. Certainly in the context of my bringing up large subs it's with the outset of using two of them and no less, and more where permits and/or is willed/decided. What's most important is having the larger pair of subs placed along the front wall (preferably symmetrical to the mains); any addition of subs no. 3, 4 or more for a DBA can be significantly smaller and needn't be as extension capable/covering the same range as the larger ones; they'll still fulfill their "job" as extra bass sources to make for an acoustically smoother response.
Although counter intuitive, adding more does indeed create more modes, but fewer are dominant. We lose the lack of bass in one part of the room and the over abundance in another. Locating 4 subs on 4 different walls at varying distances from corners can be a revelation. Forget the stereo thing below 100Hz, sum it to mono and it can be very surprising.
I find crossing subs even lower than 80Hz to necessitate symmetry-to-the-mains placement and stereo coupling. Most subs aren't low-passed with brick wall-steep slopes, and so the sloping response "bleeds" into the upper range to make for directional awareness. Moreover it can be argued whether the 80Hz barrier of "loss of directionality"-claim holds general credence. To me it's not a hard numerical value but rather a frequency range within which directionality gradually lets go, and extends further down than the oft claimed 80Hz.
Crossing higher than 60-70Hz at least while high-passing the mains I find symmetry-to-the-mains placement of subs to be paramount, and just has the whole sphere of sound snap more effectively into place. An asymmetrically placed DBA to me sounds more like headphone/inside the head bass, which isn't natural to me. I know many disagree, so be it; I'm keenly sensitive to symmetry placement and stereo coupling of subs, and so act accordingly when implementing subs.
|
@lonemountain --
Thanks for your reply.
In large rooms one wishes for DSP to create a delay of the mains to match up to the subs, but this is often not accepted due to the audible change the DSP introduces plus the barely noticeable delay created by DSP. Any offset in time makes tracking odd, sometimes difficult where one artist is in the live room and one is the control room- both being recorded at the same time. If the entire system is DSP driven that may be a different scenario, but with ATC we prefer 100% analog output to speaker.
It goes to show there are different ways, with different compromises, to achieve one’s goals. Sonically at least I couldn’t say whether I prefer the DSP route, other than it’s the approach I’m using myself - with great results, because I also find the active ATC speakers I’ve heard to sound marvelous. Obviously many variables come into play here for an assessment and comparison to take place. What I can say is that I prefer working with a DSP solution, because of the elaborate range of tools it offers for fine tuning in a very hands-on and on-the-fly manner. That said I like the consistency and non-trendy path of ATC’s with their all-analog active filter choice and class A/B amps used throughout in their active speakers, actually (the latter) what I’m about to convert to as well.
@kingharold --
Kudos on you choice of the THT’s. They were also on my initial options list of horn sub variants. I corner load my pair of tapped horns as well, so there’s prodigious headroom in my listening space to say the least - which is a good thing; you never sense the effort, the energy just swells freely to a dizzying (indeed frightening) visceral magnitude when required, or else it simply blends in smoothly. I love that sense of power and energy bandwidth at one’s disposal here, a very immersive feel, and that there’re no limitations. Horn sub variants in particular do that effectively, yet without making themselves unnecessarily "known" in the process.
|
@lonemountain wrote:
A very interesting mix of perspectives in this thread! I agree with you Phusis, a lot of ways to "get there". It does baffle me why audiophiles disike amps inside the speaker, as though this is somehow more detrimental to sound than the massive hunk of copper hung on the amplifier’s outputs, completely hiding the speaker.
(some of following is a rant not aimed at you) As compared to a passively configured speaker here, yes, I fully agree with you. For my own part, in principle, I don’t dislike when amps are built inside active speakers, it’s the claims of amp-driver matching via bundled solutions I find can be taken out of context for what it really is, and what could as well, fundamentally, be accommodated in an outboard active setup, if you even had to.
I mean, one may have way more than enough power from the amp connected to the HF section in a active outboard setup, but it sounds great so why "match" the HF section with a less power savvy amp - does it actually make a difference for the better in perceived sound? Maybe the added headroom could in fact be the better bi-product of something that is "more than enough."
Whereas in a bundled solution a MFR wouldn’t want to shell out more dough than necessary on the amps used, and so amp-driver "matching" not least comes down to power differentiation to the different driver sections, also to save space inside the speaker in addition to thermal considerations which may dictate more efficient amp principles for those reasons alone.
Amp-driver matching as claimed here is often very dubious, because what does it entail? "Oh, we can’t tell you being it’s a business secret." Bollocks. What’s ’fundamental’ with active config. is getting rid of the passive cross-over for amp-driver direct control; THAT in itself is the main takeaway to savor and apparently too straight forward a boon to speak of, and so additional matching parameters, by some, are esoterically flaunted and heralded as core aspects that supposedly make the real difference.
Give me a break, and not least some perspective. Those of us choosing an outboard active solution mayn’t have the R&D capacity of a MFR, however we aren’t bound by a business model that adheres to a bottom line and that has to take size restrictions and market specifics into consideration - not to mention convenience. Most importantly we get the fundamentals of active configuration whilst having free reigns to choose whatever components we prefer in further matching actions, from whatever brand in whatever size, design principle, shape and price we see fit to our own ears; you still get the core and most important benefits of active, yet on a potentially unlimited physical canvas to paint on.
Something tells me a primary reason why active ATC speaker models are so coherent and well sounding is due the consistency of their excellent, in-house and carefully manufactured drive units being coupled to what’s essentially the same, quality class A/B amp sections, just scaled in accordance to the driver sections they’re feeding. That’s how it’s been for years - decades even - fairly unchanged and with no crass PR efforts or claimed "cutting edge" new tech nor dubious matching parameters to sell their product. They may be old school in that respect, but to hell with that: to this individual’s ears they’re still among the very best out there of the bundled solutions (along with Meyer Sound).
|
@erik_squires wrote:
I’m not sure if in this thread I already said it but here:
My main speakers use passive crossover which allows me to use a Luxman amplifier which I love. My next project is a 3-way self-powered center channel. That will allow me to avoid a lot of part soldering, and optimize the components in the time domain, and the final system in the frequency domain while sitting on my entertainment center.
I don’t understand the zealotry of either approach.
The active speaker will be a lot quicker to assemble, and give me time alignment features I need due to the driver arrangment, as well as higher order crossover angles, All of this helps with creating wide-dispersion. My main speakers, by using a single channel per speaker, let me select exactly the sound of an amplifier I want, and keep things simple.
For home, there’s no clear cut winner. In a professional, high power situation there’s no contest, line level crossovers and DSP wins every time.
We’ve been there at earlier junctures already, but nonetheless:
Depending on one’s view of "simplicity" you could in fact have the best of both worlds here. I recently went from 3 different amps - both with regard to brand, topology/principle and all - to 3 amps from the same manufacturer and series/model (MC² Audio T-series, class A/B) in my outboard configured fully active setup; that is, two similar amps, and the third one from the same series but just slightly less powerful. For all intents and purposes they’re sonically alike.
I’d heard the installations series amps (S and T-series) from the manufacturer at a few prior occasions, both through passive and outboard active speaker setups, and was stricken by what I figured to be their contribution to the overall sound as both even-handed, versatile and unflappable sounding, while combining insight and an organic imprinting - over the entire frequency range. They do what they have to do and get out of the way, so to speak.
To me this was an indication of amps that had "the whole package" to fulfill my sonic preferences and specific setup context, and so set out to try their inclusion and do away with the previous mantra of "different amps dedicated to their specific driver and frequency range" to instead take on the approach of similar and versatile amps. You think 575 watts/8 ohms dedicated to a direct-connection (sans passive XO) horn/driver combo with 111dB sensitivity from ~600Hz on up is shooting above the target? I say leave aside theory and take an unbiased listen - how it sounds to your ears is all that matters, as you know quite well. Suffice to say the experiment turned out well, so much so that I’m not looking back.
And this brings me to your situation: you could combine your treasured amp choice, outboard actively, with all the opportunities given with a DSP solution. If an overabundance of wattages trouble you the amps needn’t be as powerful when actively configured just by virtue of being freed of looking into a passive cross-over, not least considering they’re divided into their specific channel-to-driver element and covering a limited frequency range instead of full-range.
The element of simplicity, the lack of which worries you, could be maintained, certainly insofar you chose what’s essentially the same amps for the respective driver/frequency sections. Merely multiplying similar sections here in my view isn’t complexity per se, and remember: you’re replacing one element (i.e.: the passive XO), which in itself presents a plethora of challenges to the amp, with another element that’s simply moved outboard to signal level and gives the amps far better working conditions. More cables, yes, but they needn’t be different to one another either.
What I don’t understand is the need for division here. Indeed I’d wager you can have your cake and eat it too, while challenging your stance that there’s no clear cut winner in a domestic scenario with regard to passive vs. active implementation.
|
@thespeakerdude wrote:
Audiophiles like to use the word transparency. At moderate listening levels, the speaker will always be least transparent part perhaps with the exception of a turntable. No external amplifier that is not designed to interact with and drive one specific driver, in one specific configuration, can achieve the transparency of an application specific amplification.
As they say: are you gonna balk all day, little dog, or are you gonna bite? That's just quoting to my immediate recollection of the completeness of this saying, so nothing really implied wrt. "little dog" as such, but being you and a few others here are so much into this intricate amp-driver match, so much so indeed that it would seem you're loosing sight of the forest for the trees (while smelling some bull as well), why don't you name me a few brands/models of active, bundled speakers that adhere in some fitting form to your strict standards here, and I'll attempt to seek them out to the best of my abilities as brand/model availability allows locally, and give them a thorough listen. Others around here would have the same opportunity also, and hear for themselves what all this is supposedly about. I know, you're apparently affiliated with a manufacturer yourself - alas, one you can't reveal - but maybe you could "hide" your own representative among a selection of, say, 4-5 brands/models, and I might be lucky to catch it of the bunch in random fashion. If nothing else I might be able to listen to just on of them and assess for myself what this claimed über amp-driver match transparency trait is all about (maybe I have made this encounter already without knowing it, and I didn't really make a thing of it either way), and if it moves mountains in the whole scheme of things combined with their overall design and implementation.
To me you're just hiding behind it all, making the claims you do. Give us something to go by, or it's just hot air. I believe we agree on much more than what would seem, but this whole esoterically-laden secret-sauce amp-driver match baloney grew old a long time ago in your efforts to lessen the advantages of active if it isn't per your approach. What's there for all to see however, if they went at it themselves, is that getting rid of the passive cross-over for amp-driver direct-control is the major boon in itself and the meat and potatoes of active configuration. You go outboard active there are several aspects in dedication between amps and drivers that can be made, not least to ones own taste, and you have carte blanche wrt. the drivers, speaker design and size you want couple it with, along with the remaining gear. Forest for the trees, my friends..
|
@invalid --
... In theory they are better but in practice I haven’t heard a powered speaker system I have really liked, I’ve heard a few active systems where the passive crossover is bypassed that sounded good, but not one that the speaker manufacturer provides the amplification.
...
I never said passive was better than active, what I said was I didn’t like the sound of the powered speakers that I have heard. I do like active systems that I can pick the amplifiers and not be stuck with what comes with the speaker.
You are one of the very few around here that actually distinguishes between a bundled, active speaker setup on the one side, and an active system as separates on the other - not least as an individual that has experience with both of these scenarios sonically.
Notwithstanding the specifics of your context I find your observations interesting and to have merit, because it points to your actual experience as a consumer preferring the scenario that, certainly to some manufacturers of active speakers, is the theoretically inferior one. There are countless examples of this for sure, but at the end of the day it’s what meets the ears of a given individual and what he/she prefers, while also putting into question what the advantages of a bundled active solution amount to when viewed in its totality as a design vs. an active system of separates; does the bundled solution encompass every speaker principle, design and size? No. What’s the core benefits of active vs. its claimed more intricate pairing of drivers and amps of bundled active, and to which degree do they matter in the broader scheme of things?
Remember, we’re essentially comparing active vs. active here, and both sides have degrees to which they can, more or less successfully, be matched as a complete setup. I too (with an active-as-separates system) have looked into the importance of a uniform dispersion pattern at the crossover, and achieved it, while having a narrower dispersion pattern overall for less room interaction. Headroom galore with ultra low distortion via prodigious air displacement area and high sensitivity. 20Hz extension at war volume (i.e.: +125dB capacity). Amps by choice and matched by ears with the same topology used throughout for better coherency. Measurements to aid active filter settings, all done from the listening position in my listening room.
Your context experiencing active systems as separates is likely different, and yet you’ve found them to be preferable compared to any active, bundled speakers you’ve heard. Certainly in your case, what’s all the intricate matching of bundled really worth, in whatever specific iteration as such, when what meets the ears can’t stand the test?
So now all amplifiers sound the same.
Definitely not, but as I’m sure will be pointed it’s more about their implementation.
|
@kingharold —
We know the answer to the part of your post prior to “DSP crossed over …” That is, they remain unresponsive here because they’d have to give us an admission, but if pressed they will likely counter thar the traits pointed out by you on all-horns are unfit for domestic environments. To many an MFR it seems even their weaknesses have to be sold off as the opposite.
|
@donavabdear wrote:
As far as dynamic correctness, hard to answer that i don’t think there is any speaker that can reproduce thunder or a real symphony because no microphone can record it, even our ears don’t treat dynamics as opposed to transients in the same way. [...] Real dynamics, impossible.
By that token every aspect of sound reproduction, as something that aspires to a live acoustic or even amplified event, could be shrugged off as "impossible," and yet here we are with each our priorities and you and @thespeakerdude conveniently sidestepping dynamics because it’s a bad business model working from an uninhibited size factor.
It’s damn semantics; if by "dynamic correctness" you hold that achieving such is impossible in reproduced form, you fail to realize that some speaker implementations are way more dynamically capable than others, to a degree that makes a very worthwhile difference - even without meeting the "real thing." How about emulating the Apollo missions’ Saturn V lift-offs (from safety distance) in your home - good luck indeed - but those Genelec’s and other small toy monitors would crack open trying, while other more efficient, properly sized horn-loaded/horn hybrid iterations would actually give you a sensation of what it would’ve felt like. Just as an example.
Going after more lifelike dynamics is absolutely worth it for those who aren’t restricted by size demands or otherwise simply wills it as a factor to pursue. The consumer can actually go with whatever speaker scenario one chooses, and accommodate accordingly.
@thespeakerdude wrote:
Dynamic correctness, dynamic excitement seem to be implying the same thing. How long can you play, and what effects of any concerning dynamic compression. Horn loading / compression drivers is not the only way to achieve this of course. Horns provide, properly designed, constant directivity, but using a standard woofer/mif-woofer and a wave guide tweeter provides similar benefits without the side effects of vertical directivity lobing which can cause unpleasant reflections off vertical surfaces, likely one of the reasons why some people "don’t like horns".
"Vertical directivity lobing" isn’t an argument against proper horn-loaded compression driver-fitted speakers that wouldn’t potentially befit a low eff. waveguide + tweeter solution. Dynamically however a standard, low eff. woofer/mids + dome tweeter on a waveguide certainly falls short by a mile compared to a high eff. pro woofer/mid and compression driver + horn combo - it’s no comparison, really, also as something that matters and is perceivable in a domestic setting.
I think we can agree that a real horn loaded speaker at 20Hz, even a tapped horn is rather enormous and outside the realistic realm for most people. To achieve true directivity at the frequency is just unrealistic and you are not going to avoid room modes. Velocity/position feedback eliminates power compression issues in subs, and cheap efficient amplification is plentiful. Just put in a bunch of power subs and be done with it.
We can agree re: size factor of horn-loaded subs @20Hz, yes, but that’s not to say it isn’t doable if one so chooses. 20cf. per cab is sizeable, but once tucked away in corners they actually stay there.
What you don’t do, categorically, is bend the laws of physics with small sub size wanting to maintain extension, but in multiples they can ameliorate some of the weaknesses here. You work from a limitedly sized physical package, I and others around here don’t, and don’t tell it doesn’t matter. You know it does (and if you don’t you haven’t heard the difference or just don’t care), but as a MFR you try and downplay the significance as it suits your case.
And to be clear: you don’t eliminate power compression as proposed. There’s only one way around that, and that should be clear by now.
|
@thespeakerdude wrote:
Have you been following what I said I do? Speakers for professional applications? Do you think that just means studio speakers? @donavabdear mixes for movies where you are trying to "recreate" real dynamic events.
And your point is? @donavabdear made no effort to limit his views on dynamics to a given application of reproduction, but rather made a broad statement. I replied accordingly. To most here it’s about home audio reproduction. Dynamics should apply as one sees fit, however setting the bar high here isn’t some fad but rather acting on a hugely important aspect of music (and movie) reproduction. That it isn’t a higher priority has more to do with spousal demands and interior decoration (and even vanity) than a conscious "no thanks."
20CuFt is not really enough for a proper horn loading at 20Hz.
You wrote ".. a real horn loaded speaker at 20Hz," and I’m telling you a 20cf. quarter wave tapped horn with a tune a ~22Hz will do honest and proper 20Hz - period. What isn’t proper is asking a smaller size, lower eff. direct radiator doing the same, even with a surplus of power. And horn sub iterations can be in multiples as well.
Tell me @phusis, what is your personal definition of "dynamics"?
Let me put it this way: my take on dynamics is they matter more than many if not most audiophiles care to pursue via their home setup. Which brings me to your next question..
What is a sufficient peak db level?
To me "sufficient" peak dB level is a max. required SPL number with some +20dB’s of added headroom. A pair of corner placed (i.e.: with boundary gain) high eff. tapped horn subs and high eff. pro cinema main speakers with a combined 2.3kW actively per channel can shell out +125dB’s at the LP (~11ft. listening distance), full-range, so backwards math gives an easy 105dB’s with +20dB’s of headroom - within my actual required range.
Please note that I don’t blast my ears with +110dB peaks like a daily meal, if rarely at all. However, an abundance of full-range headroom provides wholly effortless, low distortion playback that few get to experience, even at levels that are downright physical in nature. The clean (and full-range) dynamic bandwidth not least comes in handy with Blu-ray/4K UHD playback of movies.
I could go on about describing this, but it really requires of one to experience it first-hand to know it. Suffice to say that when you have a bunch of high eff., large diameter transducers (or force multiplied via acoustic transformation) that move very little, yet while producing tremendous SPL’s at the LP, it can provide a very relaxed, full and immersive feel of sound that’s simply not attainable from smaller, low eff. speaker packages.
Coming down to it it’s really about the benchmark I’ve set out to go by within a range of core parameters, and has come to achieve in some measure. ’Core parameters’ may not apply similarly to all, and a MFR rarely has the luxury to go all-out in regards to core physics of reproduction, for reasons already outlined by you. Fortunately DIY and an open approach to which segment of gear is used can change that, relatively uninhibited.
What is a peak db level listening to an orchestra say 10 rows from the stage?
10th row with a large symphony orchestra during tutties? I’d say 105-110dB’s.
How often are you trying to recreate a Saturn V launch?
I don’t, really, and you obviously missed my point. Another example, here from the world of cars, and to hopefully get through with my point this time around: if, say, a Formula car is your effective out-of-reach reference, then for sure a Porsche 911 Carrera GTS is still faster than a Citroen Berlingo, and who among fast-car aficionados wouldn’t appreciate that difference in performance - even without achieving the speed of an F1 racer? Moreover, you’d certainly get a closer feel of what it means driving F1.
|
@kota1 wrote:
Shane Lee was saying that the three ton riser they were sitting on was lifted by that beast. I think you could see the stunned look on peoples faces in the demo, like they just saw Jaws in real life.
That’s some immense air shifting power for sure!
@closenplay --
Thank you.
@thespeakerdude wrote:
The realities of path length and flare angle means that for a practical sub-woofer, a vented box will always have the advantage at the lowest octaves. The horn is significantly more efficiency at higher bass, but at the deepest, it is not.
Vented will have the advantage wrt. size/extension ratio, yes. Horn sub extension, certainly a traditional front loaded horn while maintain high efficiency and actual loading in its range, will be very big indeed. 20Hz flat, meaning a tune slightly lower, should translate into some 30cf. volume - a behemoth in most domestic environments. So, a FLH provides extension and high eff. as the design and size allows (i.e.: horn path length and mouth area), but with a "practical" demand - debatable in importance and a variable in relation to who you’re asking - will be limited to having high eff. from some 30-40Hz on up. I’ve chosen the tapped horn variant to get a more effective size/extension ratio, although it mostly comes down to higher eff. in the lowest octave and a following steeper roll-off below tune, while also limiting upper extension compared to a FLH. Another important take-away with the tapped horn variant is woofer cone excursion minima at the tune, whereas the sealed chamber-fitted woofer in a FLH will have maximum excursion at the tune. This matters wrt. distortion in the lower range, and also up into the central bass. In reality I could live happily with either a FLH or a TH, but in my particular context has chosen the latter as the most fitting option.
Why then something so large for what is still a relative impediment wrt. extension and, most predominantly with the tapped horn, is bandwidth limited to boot? Because of their sound. Few have experienced horn-loaded bass in their home, and so few can really comment on the perceived nature of true horn-loaded bass here, but suffice to say they sound different compared to direct radiation bass/sub solutions - and by horn-loaded I mean both FLH and TH iterations, not that they sound completely alike either. Bass isn’t just bass, and even smoothly implemented via DBA and room corrected these differences shine through.
If you are recreating the Saturn V, you need the energy at the lowest frequencies, 20Hz and below. You are better off vented. For pure music, you don’t have a lot below 40Hz and dropping quick, horn is great for a sub. I realized the Saturn V was both hyperbole, but also representational. You want to recreate life’s audible events.
You’d be surprised perhaps knowing how much the sheer volume of bass, cone-to-air loading efficiency and central to upper bass fundamentals matter with an attempt at getting a feel for the Saturn V’s blast impact. For sure, getting the infra-sonics in place is of importance for a more complete experience, but for them to really matter this low down you’d need truly prodigious air radiation area. I once heard a pair of SVS SB16-Ultra fire off with the Saturn V launch in the great documentary ’Apollo 11’ on Blu-ray and, believe me, they fell utterly flat - even with a 5-10Hz lower tune - compared to my TH subs in this scene. The SVS’s dug deeper, yes, but the sheer visceral feel for the immense size and the air echoing wallop and "cracking" sound those Saturn V rockets could produce just reached a completely different level via the tapped horns, whereas the SVS’s mostly just rumbled and shook at ground level while never providing the same feel for the size and impact of it all. My TH subs are over 4x the size compared to the SVS's, and so they better make a difference - which they most certainly do in this respect as well.
That’s fair. Essentially rock concert level, somewhat close to the stage.
I am glad you don’t listen to it regular. As much as I love live music, I don’t say yes to the frequent invites I get any more for amplified events and even for the last long while, I have generally enjoyed with ear plugs. I take enough of a "hit" professionally. Have to respect your ears.
Absolutely, got to protect our ears as best as we can.
@donavabdear can comment on this better, but the target playback levels, we could call it the intended levels, are far below what your system is capable of.
Dialed-in reference volume, with the dialogue as the point of reference, has the peaks sit at an occasional 105-110dB’s, although that’s not typical.
10 seats out, 105 would be the max, and usually lower. If you were up on the stage, it could hit 120 with some pieces having extended 110db+ sections. This is starting to become a big issue, starting initially in Europe. Due to the amount of practicing, the musicians total exposure can be at ear damaging levels, especially in the brass section, even worse than percussion though percussion can have higher peaks. Lots of talk w.r.t. regulation, creating practice spaces with more distance between performers, positional changes to reduce total exposure, etc.
Musicians are taking a wild SPL exposure here, with severe hearing damage to follow. Regulations would be most welcome to alleviate these issues.
@kingharold --
That’s some journey on your way to audio bliss - kudos. 16th order slopes takes steepness to a new level, with some even going with 32nd order iterations. By comparison I’m now only using LR4 slopes..! And a great looking system for sure.
Thus I have an active system with drivers and amplifiers of my own choosing with every element being easy to change. I think I have the best of both worlds. Besides that the system is not ugly.
That’s indeed an advantageous take-away with an outboard active setup, to have this freedom of component implementation throughout to accommodate one’s specific preferences, while still avoiding the passive cross-over altogether - all-horn at that.
@donavabdear wrote:
@kingharold Thanks for the story, you make me really want to seek out horns. Glad you understand active speaker synergy, I feel like it is a step into audio reality away from arrogance. I just can’t imagine someone paying so much money for speakers/crossovers and amps that aren’t designed for each other. You seem like exactly the opposite of a person who simply pays a lot of money for flashy audio equipment without considering the objective details.
But that’s just the thing with @kingharold’s setup; the components entailed weren’t specifically designed for each other, but rather carefully implemented after an arduous trial-and-error approach with different hardware combos, if with the aid of professional assistance. This may come down to the same a MFR is essentially pursuing, i.e.: careful implementation, but it goes to show - by virtue of an individual + guests being extremely pleased with the sonic outcome - that an outboard active setup can be a highly successful venture, and with no limits imposed wrt. the chosen speaker principle and following size requirements.
|
