Why not horns?
Anyone care to show distortion for horn speakers? Here they are for cone drivers: Click on "Harmonic Distortion" button for Seas W16NX001 -50dB below the fundamental frequency... not too shabby. I can see horns being lower distortion because the driver is higher efficiency so not being driven so hard for a given volume level but worse because of the horn induced reflections. |
I've been a Time Coherent "fanboy" ever since I first encountered and sold Dunlavy speakers about 15 years ago. And I'm just as passionate about that design as you guys are with horns. But, having a lot of experience with Avantgarde as well, it has always been a curiosity what would happen if these two principles were combined. Here is a story about a friend of a friend who is attempting to do just that. http://www.stereotimes.com/jimlangham.shtml Mr. Langham lived for a long time with the mighty Dunlavy SC6 as his reference. Then he heard these Magicos and began the quest of combining the best of both worlds. The article doesn't mention this part of it. I only know because I know his friend who told me about it. It might be an interesting article for all you horn guys though! Cheers! |
Thank you for added information Herman. I appreciate it. I suppose I was using the looser definitions of "unique" as in "distinctly characteristic" or "unusual". (Meriam-Webster goes into a drawn out discussion over the battle of useage on this word. Some scholars thinking it should be used in an absolute sense, others giving it broader application) Anyway, thats neither here nor there. Probably not the best choice of words to indicate that the idea of time coherency by design is exceedingly rare. To the best of my knowledge, only Vandersteen and Thiel on a consistent basis anymore. My understanding of the differences between time alignment and time coherence comes mostly from those who care about such distinctions. (John Dunlavy, Pat McGinty, Richard Vandersteen, Roy Johnson, etc. Ah well, John Atkinson too) According to them, time "alignment" is the physical placement of the drivers with the attempt aligning the leading edge of an impulse. Designs with slanted and concave baffles are attempting this. Wilson Audio, the Focal Utopia line, Avalon, etc. are good examples of this. The distinction between these designs and those such as Vandersteen and Thiel are in the minimum phase filters. Only minimum phase filters prevent a timing delay within the crossover. So, according to them, time "coherency" is when all frequencies arrive at the same time and in the same phase. Since all filters of a 2nd order or higher delay the signal to some degree, only a minimum filter combined with physical alignment achieves coherency. Things get a little grey when someone like Hansen comes along. Hansen uses minimum phase filters and physical time alignment but inverts the polarity of (If I remember correctly) the midrange drivers. Thus his speakers are time "coincident". Ie, all frequencies arrive at the same time but some will be out of phase. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to share this primer. I doubt I did the concept full justice. So at this point, I would suggest reading the Green Mountain Audio site for more precise info. Roy goes into serious detail. Far more than any of the others did. And it's interesting reading to boot! I'm just starting to understand the realities of varying digital filters and their "orders". But from what I understand so far, even higher order digital filters have timing delays. But, admittedly, I'm still learning about these bad boys. For now I'm only comfortable with analog filters. But thats why I was so intrigued by what you (Herman) have done! If your digital filters do preserve the time domain then I'll bet that IS one helluva system! Cheers! |
Prez, you just said "I never said that Thiel was the only time coherent speaker out there" but in an earlier post you said "A Thiel is time coherent, which makes it unique in this regard." How can it be unique to Thiel if others do it? And time alignment is not the same as time coherent. OK, I read Thiel's description of time coherence, it looks the same as every description of time alignment I've read. I'm willing to be educated. What is the difference? I have Duo Omegas on top. It is a first order crossover on the tweeter, a single cap in series with the driver.. The mid horn has no passive components. Details on their web site. My woofer has no passive crossover, it is hooked directly to it's amp just like the mid horn is to it's amp. They are no order, no crossover. Digital EQ/crossover can be non phase shifting . |
Weseixas: "Which maggies are we discussing?" Duke: I probably should have picked one model and stuck to it, which I didn't do. Weseixas: "A speaker shoot out would be interesting!" Duke: If a "shoot-out" could be arranged that was satisfactory to both, I'd put my $4k bipolar up against the Maggie 3.6. Shoot me an e-mail if you'd like to explore further. Weseixas: "I also cannot agree that a horn speaker will sound like a planer." Duke: I'm not expecting you to agree without an ears-on; just hoping to show enough evidence that you'll keep your mind open to the possibility. Weseixas: [to Macrojack]"I'm sure Duke is proud to have... you for a customer!" Duke: I wish!! But no, Macrojack isn't a customer of mine, and now that he has a pair of Bill Woods' speakers it is extremely unlikely that he ever will be. I think he's done. Macrojack is passionate, and so are you. If you two had met anywhere other than on the internet, I bet you'd focus on what you have in common rather than where you disagree, and very quickly become friends. Weisaxas: "Duke, Ralph, I have enjoyed the discourse and wish you both the best in such a tough business...." Duke: Thank you sir, and I wish you the best in such a tough hobby! |
Ohhh, In case you missed it Macroturd .. You are pissing on your own thread , I'm sure Duke is proud to have such an ignoramous as you for a customer! with your vast wallet and big ears your listening room must appear to have a pr of horns on either end ... Well I'm sure it's now your milkey tme ! Many Happies...... |
O. K. wiseass, you've alluded repeatedly to your 30 years of experience designing and building loudspeakers. It seems to be the justification for your opinions and the reason that we should feel subject to your authority. While more than a dozen of us have testified as to actual experience we have in owning and using our horns, you feel that your theories which you value so highly because of your thirty years of experience, thirty years of experience, thirty years of experience is superior to any personal testimonials any of us can issue. Think about that. Doesn't it make you feel kinda foolish? Before you bowl us over with more unsubstantiated nonsense about your vast thirty years of experience, try providing a resume. Duke and Ralph have very good credentials and a desire to remain impartial. I find them to be helpful. You come across meanwhile as a grandiose, self inflated, naysayer. |
Herman, believe me, I have no desire or intention of getting into another worthless debate with you. But you do force me to defend myself. First, I never said that Thiel was the only time coherent speaker out there. Having owned Meadowlark as well as multiple pairs of Dunlavy I can safely say that time coherence is not something new to me. My assertion was simply that the exact speaker in question (Thiel) WAS time coherent and that "most" horns are not because "most horns" that I have encountered do not use first order crossovers. Clearly, I do not know what YOUR speakers use. But when I look at the pictures of your system I appears to me that the upper horns are the Avantgarde Duo. If this is wrong please share. Yesterday I took apart a pair of Duo horns to see what was inside. On the (stock) pair that I looked at there was certainly more than a single capacitor going to the tweeter. I then measured the speaker and found I was correct in assuming that the Duo was not time coherent. The impulse response and step response clearly show that it is NOT. THIS is why I said that (quote) "unless you changed the crossovers" neither are yours. I ALSO started off by asking what you meant by "time aligned". This, in other words, was the perfect opportunity for you to explain that indeed YOUR speakers use first order filters. If indeed they do then they very well may be time coherent. I am perfectly willing to accept this. But up to this point you have not indicated this is the case with your speakers. And time alignment is not the same as time coherent. So, as I said. Please indulge the curious here (not only myself. I happen to know that Unsound is also a fan of time coherence). Please go into more detail on YOUR speakers. If you have a first order filter on tweeter. Great. What about the midrange and woofer? All three need to have minimum filters for the speaker to be truly time coherent. I am sure you know this. And I ask because I am truly curious. If your speakers use first order from top to bottom then you are only the second person I have come across to implement something that I have been exceedingly curious about for a very long time. Ie. horns+first order. I am also very curious to know what woofers you are using. If your speakers did start life as an Avantgarde Duo, did you incorporate the stock woofer into your horn? Thanks. |
Herman, I applaud your efforts, I don't believe I have heard a horn system that makes similar claims. It would appear as though you have a rather unique custom speaker system. A speaker system that would be unique to other horns systems, and perhaps even an anathema to some other horn enthusiasts. A speaker system that would not readily be available to the typical consumer. I have concerns that the horns themselves would get in the way of themselves in providing a waveform that would actually be time and phase coherent at the listening position. Still, it's refreshing to see the effort being made. Bravo. |
A Thiel is time coherent, which makes it unique in this regard. Prez, what Thiel calls Time Coherence is time alignment, it is certainly not unique to Thiel. Google "time coherent speakers" and you will find many who make that claim including NSM, Green Mountain, Vandersteen, Meadowlark, and others including mine. I do not care to debate you on this, you are as wrong about this as you were about the last issue. My physical crossover consists of a single capacitor in line with the tweeter. It is physically aligned with the mids and electronically aligned with the woofer through an electronic delay. All other crossover functions are done digitally with no phase shifts or timing issues. The next step is to get rid of that single cap and triamp completely eliminating any passive components between my amps and drivers. You can question my methods but my speakers are most definitely time coherent. . |
Why can't we all accept that 'we like what we like'. Many of us have been around the block and have much experience in listening to many different kinds of systems. There are those that have not. I have never said that everyone needs to go out a buy a pair of Lascalas. Only that I enjoy them and feel they do what I want them to do for the price and for the room. I will not bash planars or box speakers because many are very good, as well as, different strokes for different folks. I have left so many forums because this bashing continues......I do not want to leave this one, but honestly....I am sure I will be missed ! |
Duke, Ralph, I have enjoyed the discourse and wish you both the best in such a tough business.... It's Audio .. nothing will be unanimous! no Indy 500 checkered flag! Nothing but a bunch of Nutters dedicating their cause to an imaginary goal and just like England , we can't score! No Cup! it's all about the journey..... Enjoy ! ............... |
Hello Ralph, Yes Duke did comment and clarify on what he is doing in regards to his speakers and they are not a typical monopole horn system, his being a bipolar horn speaker, i do agree this could be a better presentation of a standard horn config and as technology marches on, i can see horn speakers getting better , but better than what? another horn , absolutely! The best available to us absolutely not! others are marching forward too. I also cannot agree that a horn speaker will sound like a planer, 30 + yrs experience designing and selling speakers tells me not so, the radiating pattern large surface area and lower transient distortion vs a single driver over the same range are typical standouts. But i do reserve the right to be wrong here, but that would entail hearing one of these magic Horns..... right ? Don't feel this is all Horn bashing there are bad planers 2, Recall me saying 90% of the speakers on the market are bad , some really bad ! This is across the board affecting some topologies more than others, and i have heard bad electrostatic speaker on many occasions , as recently as a few months ago .... I will continue to listen and enjoy the music, there are many multi panel planer systems capable of reproducing the best of a recording, not shy for bass and lacking nothing to a horn speaker for power not to mention multi panel dynamic dipole systems that are way ahead of any Horn system i have ever heard and i could accept that even with my contacts and exposure at the highest level of the game, that i may have never heard a good horn system... I will have to accept your's and Duke's word for it, as you mine that they will not approach the sound of a well built planer system....? IMO .. Regards, |
Weseixas, it sure looks to me like Duke addressed the issues that you had with my last post. I just have one thing to add, and this is true of digital vs analog, tubes vs transistors, horns vs planars, pretty much you name it in audio: The better the technologies get the more they sound the same and that is simply because the better any technology gets, the more it sounds like real music. I believe that most horn detractors (which often includes me) are leery of horns due to past bad experiences. However we have to accept that this world offers a large range of experiences, some of which are not available to everyone even if they have been in the field of endeavor for decades. I am now suggesting that while you have heard many horns sound terrible, you have not heard the best horns nor have you heard them with the best supporting equipment that can show them off. I'm going to take it a step further though, to illustrate my comment at the beginning of this paragraph. The same is true for you of planar speakers as well. I am sure that these two statements apply to everyone on this thread. All we can be really sure of is that the better technologies get, the more they will sound like music and therefore more like each other, not less. |
"My mid-tweets are delayed so I am time aligned." - Herman Please define time aligned. My point, in this case, is that unless you changed out the crossovers in your speakers you may have some sort of "alignment" but the bass is still lagging the mid and the mid is still lagging the tweet. A step response will reveal this. And while what your's sound like in relation to the vast majority of box speakers may be true it may not necessarily be true in relation to a Thiel. A Thiel is time coherent, which makes it unique in this regard. |
I would like to see those who query those that are in the know, to actually design and produce a loudspeaker and make a pair to be scrutinized. I own a pair of JohnK speakers and have heard Dukes loudspeakers on at least 2 separate occasions,they are very good sounding speakers. I do not know (or care) how they are designed or how many bottles of glue are used, I only know by my ears that they sound good. Severely delayed? would that be like, er tomorrow? |
' I bet there aren't a handful of people here who have actually heard a front loaded bass horn of sufficient length and size like mine to properly produce a bass note.. Raise your hands.." I doubt it also. Hopefully that is not required in order to do it right else the future of horns does not look any brighter. |
You are correct sir !! However, if you dismiss all horns because you believe they have similar qualities that make them all sound bad then you must believe all box speakers produce sound with similar qualities. Not the that they all sound the same, but a driver in a box is a driver in a box and there is only so much you can do to mitigate that. HONK !!! HONK !!! . |
"severely delayed" How so? Of course I have made many compromises but that's not one of them. My mid-tweets are delayed so I am time aligned. I've heard many Thiels and countless other box speakers. The bass is not as good and you can't dispute that unless you have heard the alternative.. I bet there aren't a handful of people here who have actually heard a front loaded bass horn of sufficient length and size like mine to properly produce a bass note.. Raise your hands....I'm not talking about rear loaded horns like the folded horns that most Lowthers are mounted in.. Sorry, there is a difference. Of course there are those who are convinced every bass note will sound like it is coming from a sousaphone. I find that very amusing. . |
Hello Duke , Which maggies are we discussing ? Anything over 12K becomes directional regardless of the speaker. The term figure 8 is an misnomer , in real terms it is used to signify similar pattern front/rear. SO we are getting into semantics discussing beaming etc as a dipole will have the same out of Phase pattern front to back .. Of course a full range single panel will exhibit differently vs a 2 or 3 way dipole. |
Accurate?? By what definition? I test smaller designs in a anechoic chamber measure for accuracy this is how I define accurate true to signal able to produce musicality thats true to intention of artist. And yes why not make the sound quality's enjoyable unless you just want accurate poor sounding loudspeakers? I'm done with this waist of forum space. Have better things to do like designing loudspeakers of all types. Will let the members with very little real hands on experience take over. They need the ego stroke. Have at it I'm out of here... |
Hi-fi sounding only c/w poor bass sounding horns? sure seems like we have entered a silly season. I like my horns (Impulse H1's and Oris 150's) simply because to my ears they have more good points that far outweight their minus points, but the most important factor is they make even the duffest recordings sound musical and very enjoyable, and of course well recorded music sounds sublime, and I am never embarrassed to play any cd that I own that a visitor may request. Can you say the same? |
Weseixas, the reason few dipoles maintain their figure-8 up into the mid and treble region has to do with beaming and/or driver interference. For example, the horizontal pattern of Maggies changes due to horizontal comb filtering in the crossover region, and then they have a very wide pattern just above the crossover point, narrowing with increasing frequency (beaming) just like any direct radiator. It's still a dipolar pattern, but not the same neat figure-8 we had at low frequencies. Still, overall Maggies are better than most when it comes to radiation pattern uniformity. Unfortunately electrostats tend to have patterns that narrow significantly at high frequencies because they are relatively wide in the horizontal plane; even the concentric-ring Quad 63 and its descendents beam severely in the top two octaves. In contrast, my bipolars have a much more uniform pattern over most of the spectrum. From about 500 Hz on up, the faceted-curved SoundLabs are the only bi-directional speakers I can think of that have a more uniform radiation pattern in the horizontal plane than mine (and below 500 Hz is considerably less critical in most rooms, according to Dr. Earl Geddes). I happen to think radiation pattern uniformity matters a lot, because it largely determines what's happening in the reverberant field, and typically most of what we hear is reverberant energy. No doubt other designers place higher priority on other characteristics, which means that the industry offers a pretty good variety of choices for those who go digging for them. Responding to your questions: * The measurements I take which reveal radation patterns are always time-gated to exclude reflections. * The rear-facing drivers on my bipoles are not in reverse polarity; if so, they would be dipoles. * My first two bipolars use round waveguides based on Earl Geddes' work, but my most recent (and least expensive) one uses what I'd call a waveguide-style horn; that is, constant directivity with no diffraction slots, vanes, or other pattern-widening features. I wasn't necessarily suggesting you take a look at any of my bipolars, beyond the links I've provided. Any of my three bipolar models would have room-interaction characteristics similar (but not identical) to a dipole. The article linked to in my last post offers a good introduction to the controlled-pattern offset bipole configuration I use. One other thing you said that I would like to comment on: "Look I can understand those that have migrated to the sound of horns, they do it for the power." That wasn't my motivation. As a hard-core amateur in the late 80's (with two SpeakerBuilder Magazine articles to my credit), I came to believe that getting the reverberant field right was critical, but didn't know how to do it well. And I hated horns, so didn't consider them as a possible solution. Well in 2001 I heard a hornspeaker that didn't have the coloration I'd come to take for granted, and suddenly saw a window of opportunity to get the radiation pattern right. I won't bore you with the details of the journey, but it was the possibility of good radiation pattern control that attracted me to horns (or waveguides, to be specific... I'm still leery of most types of horns). Duke |
06-20-10: Audiokinesis wrote: My bipolars radiate into a constant 90 degree pattern, both front and back, over most of the spectrum. Few dipoles maintain their initial figure-8 once we get up into the midrange and treble region; their radiation patterns usually change significantly with frequency (SoundLabs being a notable exception). ----------------- Sorry , not sure how you are coming by this, everyone i have ever measured exhibits a classic figure 8 or pretty close 2 it, unless there is an reflection issue. *How were you measuring ? you must have reflections issues. *Also is your bi-polars reverse phase in the rear ? * is yours a compression horn or a wave guide ? I'm not sure about your question Duke, i must have missed it before , anyway i have never insinuated or said that i had listened to your speaker(s) before. |
Weseixas wrote: "I'm sure you are not comparing your bi-polar speaker polar plot to that of a Di-pole with it's figure 8 pattern ?.... I highly doubt the 2 will sound the same, the sonic characteristics are so completely different..." Duke replies: Indeed I am making precisely that comparison. My bipolars radiate into a constant 90 degree pattern, both front and back, over most of the spectrum. Few dipoles maintain their initial figure-8 once we get up into the midrange and treble region; their radiation patterns usually change significantly with frequency (SoundLabs being a notable exception). As we go down in frequency my pattern widens somewhat, but this is of less consequence down where the room dominates anyway. In the bass region I even manage to emulate much of the in-room smoothness of a good dipole system, and here's a recent article in a webzine that describes how I do so. A few years ago I had a longtime (decades long) SoundLab owner tell me that one of my bipolars came the closest to sounding like his speakers of anything he had ever heard, including monopoles, other dipoles, other bipoles, omnis, or anything eles. In fact he actually placed an order for a pair of my speakers, but later cancelled it after changing the setup of his SoundLabs to be more like how I set up my bipolars - apparently that made a significant improvement in his room. Since my intention was to emulate the radiation pattern characteristics of the SoundLabs (something I did with Roger West's full knowledge), the outcome there was still encouraging to me. I don't mind coming in a close second to SoundLab. Since you didn't reply to my inquiry about where you heard my speakers, now I'm thinking that maybe you didn't. Is that correct? Duke |
Hello Duke, With all do respect , for Ralph to insert distance to back wall would be like me inserting some absurd requirement for listening to a horn,speaker... We are discussing things and ideas in absolute terms, Ralph knows better than that! I thought this was an discussion about the merits and demerits of Horn speakers , apparently not , i suppose ? In regards to Dipoles 3.5 is 2 close IMO. My rule of thumb at least the speaker height from the rear wall or 5 feet min and I'm sure you are not comparing your bi-polar speaker polar plot to that of a Di-pole with it's figure 8 pattern ?.... I highly doubt the 2 will sound the same, the sonic characteristics are so completely different... Regards, |
Macrojack , Really !,,,, Maybe you should review the personal retorts and shout louder approach by you and your "friends" before labeling me with such i notice none has labeled you absurd when stating this ! With a frequency response of 300 Hz. up to 14 Khz. from a single distortionless driver, Macrojack Ahhh , such is life !!!! |
Ralph wrote: "If you cannot get the [dipole] speaker far enough from the rear wall, the first comment [that dipoles create the required space and time of a recording more accurately than monopoles] is moot. Duke has built systems that are rear-firing and they seem to work fine..." Weseixas replied: "Atmasphere... You are comparing a monopole to a dipole, they cannot sound alike or have the same presentation and never will... Spare me the condescension of telling me about Duke's speakers, been there done that and a ball of wax..." Duke chimes in: I think Ralph was saying that if your dipoles are not far enough out into the room, the advantage of dipole radiation is lost. And I agree; in fact, I usually advise people who can't place speakers at least 3.5 feet out into the room to get monopoles instead. Without sufficient time-lag in between the first arrival sound and the arrival of the backwave energy, that strong early reflection is more likely to be a net detriment. I think Ralph referred to my bipolar horn-type speakers because they are an example of a horn speaker that has radiation characteristics similar to a dipole, and as a result when set up like a dipole, they tend to sound a lot like a dipole. These comments by an Audiogoner who has owned some rather nice dipole and omni speakers (as you will see) backs up this claim. Weseixas again: "Anyone who says a good planer sounds like a horn or vis a vie has never heard a good planer setup." What a good horn system and a good planar system have in common is this: They both generate a reverberant field that is spectrally correct (something few cone-n-dome systems accomplish). The relative level of that reverberant field different: With a correctly-setup planar, the reverberant field is considerably stronger relative to the first-arrival sound than for a monopole horn system. One could liken this to sitting in Row 15 versus Row 3. (A good omni is usually more like Row 25.) Weseixas, your "been there done that" remark about my speakers implies that you've heard them. Which ones, and where, if you don't mind my asking? Thanks, Duke |
Weseixas - I can't see much value in your opinions. Sorry. Audio Asylum seems more like an appropriate format for your debating technique. That 30 years in the audio biz has taught you to view the majority of high end audio with an informed cynicism but your "shout louder" approach to discussion keeps me from taking you very seriously. |
