If you want to participate, you should know the path the conversation has taken.
That way you won't be taking us back over the same ground again or having to ask questions that have already been answered. You may find the whole thread pretty interesting. There have been many very well qualified and well informed comments and little or no off topic banter. Pour yourself a drink and settle in for a pleasant read. |
Ok found something !
06-05-10: Macrojack
I use my horns in a two way application with a light, fast 15 inch Italian woofer. The crossover is set at 400 Hz. right now with 24 db LR slopes in both directions.
----------------------------------------------------------
WS:
There is no such thing as a fast 15 inch woofer operating @ 400 Hz IMO ! Consider how directional the speaker will be @ 400 Hz and it's large mass ( relative ) with it's accompanying cone coloration ...
______________________________________________________
Macrojack
I cut the woofer off at 33 Hz. and let the horn reach for the stars. My compression driver has heat sinks and is designed to play up to about 40 db louder than what I use it for.
I have a conical wooden horn made of solid cherry wood that does not seem to color anything. I'm not sure about the validity of these few comments about disadvantages in horn use but none of it seems to apply to my set up. I've listened carefully over the last few days fo signs of coloration, phase problems, compression, etc. and no symptoms are apparent to me.
_______________________________________________________
WS:
Interesting , are you saying it does not exist in your system or you do not hear it ? based on what you have expressed so far , it would be baffling to not have a high degree of nasality .
________________________________________________________
Macrojack:
Bill Woods, who designed my horns and sold them to me along with aluminum throat adaptor and B&C driver, says that these represent the best midrange he can provide and that he has tested and measured them against QUAD, Manger and Heil, which he says are the best other mid range producers.
__________________________________________________________
WS:
all 3 drivers you mentioned have a completely different sonic image and acoustic center to your horn speaker!
how is he comparing them , FR, THD ?
__________________________________________________________
Macrojack:
To be honest, I don't remember if he also mentioned Walsh. We haven't talked in a while.
In any case, I am not a technician and I am not one who believes I possess superior listening skills. What I can say is that I am unable to hear any lag between my woofer and my horn, and that is a tone and body to musical instruments (timbre, I guess) which I never heard equaled by any other speaker.
Perhaps I'm the one who is guilty of lumping everything together. I don't get out much and I haven't heard any other horns in years. Maybe mine are not so representative of the breed as I assumed. Nonetheless, my horns do represent what is possible and I think that a larger company could produce this caliber of work at or below Bill's prices if they could justify the research and tooling. Bill has probably already provided much of the former and the latter can be outsourced reasonably, perhaps even domestically.
_______________________________________________________
WS:
Is there any data available on your horn setup ....
i would be interested in seeing the impedance magnitude and phase! of each driver ....
Regards |
B&C DCX 50 compression driver
RCF L15P530 woofer
You can Google those
If you want to know about my horn, contact Bill Woods at Acoustic Horn Company. It's called the AH300.
You can contact Bill with your questions. I'm not qualified to answer. I just write the check. |
Thanks for the info :
Web Site : http://www.acoustichorn.com/tech/conical/
Nice work , he did not list any technical details on the site, did you get anything with your drivers ?
regards, |
Macrojack,
I could not find anything on the DCX-50 , only a DCM50 is listed on there Website. Is the DCX dis-continued ?
The DCM50 has quite a bit of cavity resonance and not much response after 10K being a full 5 db down @ 12 K . I guess an eq could help out here.
Are you EQ'ing your system ? |
DCM 50 is a mid-range driver designed to cross over at 9 Khz. DCX 50 is a coax. I don't use the tweeter.
Here's what you need to know. I like my speakers quite a lot and I don't care if they are flat, fat or phony. However, B&C is a very highly respected line of Italian drivers. I use them because Bill recommended them to me, not because I read the specs. RCF is also an Italian company, also highly regarded.
I included links to my drivers earlier. If you want answers, go back and read the thread. You seem like you want to challenge me. Why?
If you are really interested, do some research on your own. So far you have been too lazy to read this whole thread. As for your IMO and your presumed expertise -- save it for someone who needs advice. I have received sufficient guidance from Bill. |
You make absolute absurd opinionated statements than get rude and antsy because you are questioned about such. LOL.....
I would suggest you record yourself and play it back a few hundred times instead of putting it on the internet where others might respond !
|
Weseixas wrote: "There is no such thing as a fast 15 inch woofer operating @ 400 Hz IMO ! Consider how directional the speaker will be @ 400 Hz and it's large mass ( relative ) with it's accompanying cone coloration ..."
Four hundred hertz is probably more than two octaves below that woofer's upper rolloff frequency, so it will be plenty "fast" enough to do its job. The radiation pattern will be fairly wide at that frequency, and the cone will probably still be pistonic.
Weseixas: "...based on what you have expressed so far, it would be baffling to not have a high degree of nasality."
It is quite possible to build a horn system that doesn't have a "nasal" or "horn-like" signature. Part of the solution lies in the design of the horn itself, and part lies in the crossover. Having heard several Bill Woods designs over the years, I have every reason to believe what Macrojack says about his speakers.
Duke
dealer/manufacturer |
Thanks, Duke.
Here's an ad for the woofer I'm using. It is now discontinued and I had to do a lot of chasing to find a pair. Notice the frequency response.
http://www.idjnow.com/StoreModules/ProductDetails.aspx/PID=L15P530
Here's the AH 300 horn:
http://www.acoustichorn.com/products/300/
and lastly, here's the mid range driver:
http://www.prosoundservice.com/m9_view_item.html?m9:item=BC-DCX50
I am presently using a DBX Drive Rack PA for crossover, time delay, and EQ.
Reading comments on The Lansing Heritage Forum led me to purchase an XTA DP 224 speaker management system to replace the Drive Rack. Presently I am waiting for Dave Wall of Snob Productions to find time to bring his XTA software to my house for professional set up. We're tentatively scheduled for next Tuesday morning. |
Fast woofers they pass me in the slow lane. How many MPH can a fast woofer do anyway? And why do people still think of bass as fast or slow. For to me this doesn't describe any real aspect of sound quality. I have never heard fast or slow bass and I design bass systems. I have heard time delay, limited transients, excessive distortions, phase issues. But not fast or slow. Since these drivers are not going anywhere I would say all transducers are very slow indeed. Unless rolled down a steep hill then a fast transducer is possible. |
Very funny, Johnk. In this instance, "fast" means it refrains from eating. |
I'd like to weigh in on the "fast woofer" question with some observations.
Back in the 70's when I used to sell audio, woofers generally ranged from 8 to 16 inches in most popular lines. I personally never took as well in general to speakers that used 16" and often even 12" woofers. They seemed to almost always sound muddied and unrefined compared to models in the same lines with 8-10" woofers.
My thoughts are that larger woofers are perhaps not a bad thing, if done well of course, however they are often more demanding in regards to amplification. Back then, we used mostly receivers up to 120 w/ch or so that perhaps did not have the current delivery or damping necessary to control those big drivers properlty, or at least that is my theory.
Today, I think there are many amps that are up to the task. That is one of the reasons I am willing to perhaps investigate mixed driver horn or other systems that use larger woofs to see what might be possible these days. I'm strongly considering giving a pair of Klipsch Heresy's a try in my wifes sunroom where I run a pair of very nice Dynaudio monitors currently. These are tiny but deliver almost too much bass in that room. The Heresy's running off my high current, high damping factor Bel Canto ref1000 mono blocks is a combo that I think the price is right to perhaps at least give a try. |
Here's an explanation from Bill Woods about his conical horns and the advantages they provide.
http://www.acoustichorn.com/tech/conical/
Mapman - There is a quote I recall from AA. "Half measures availed us nothing". With that in mind I must say that a Klipsch Heresy, or any Klipsch for that matter, will be unable to show you what excellent horns can do.
I'm in western Colorado and Oswald's Mill is in north central Pennsylvania and lower Manhattan. Bill is in Hastings, Ontario. Chris Brady of Teres Turntables is in Broomfield, Co., near Boulder. I believe the Cogent guys are in the L.A. area. Perhaps you can travel to one of these places to hear what I'm talking about. If you are still reading after this long, you probably should go somewhere and get a listen. I know that Jonathan Weiss created quite a stir with these horns at the RMAF 2 years ago. |
That reminds me. I still plan on experimenting with a prototype conical against the Edgarhorn tractrix. Bill gave me some dimensions to try but it has become just another bullet item on a long list of things to do. |
would the old JBL L300 be considered horn type speakers. I owned those for about 10 yrs |
Here's a spec sheet on your JBL L-300 Summit speakers:
http://www.lansingheritage.org/images/jbl/specs/home-speakers/1975-l300/page4.jpg
It had a mid-range horn covering from 800 Hz. to 8500 Hz. |
Thanks, Macrojack.
In times past I misjudged your honest enthusiasm to have a commercial motivation, and gave you grief about it. I'm sorry about that. Nowadays I just enjoy your enthusiasm, especially when we agree!
Duke |
05-23-10: Eldartford
If you want violins to sound like trumpets, get horns.
On the other hand for, Dixieland Jazz, a horn speaker is ideal.
--------------------------------------------------------
Actually, from personal experience some horns sound very good on all types of music, and I've not heard Ms Hahn or Ms mutter playing a trumpet with a bow. Perhaps you have? |
Radio Shack's top the line speaker for years when I worked there was the famous Mach One, which was a horn hydrid design. I never cared much for those and used to steer people away. As I recall, they did sound like a lot of the bad stereotypes of how horns sound. They used to sit prominently right in the front of almost every Radio Shack store in the country. I suspect these helped to give horns a bad name. Some of the other Realistic gear was OK though BTW. |
Hello Audiokinesis,
I stated the woofer would be directional @ 400hz, not that 400 hz was it's cutoff frequency.
At 400 hz 12db/octave, the dispersion would not be "wide " IMO and Having such a large woofer radiating into the lower midrange would tend to have a lot of coloration's due to it's associated inherent back waves and cabinet reflections emanating thru such a large driver.
For the record , i never told Macrojack that his speaker did not sound good , that was his opinion, he is entitled to it . I'm asking question based on the technical data off the drivers being used which contradict some of his statements. Technically speaking and IMO this speaker would require Eq-ing to have a decent balance....
-------------------------------------------------------
Weseixas wrote: "There is no such thing as a fast 15 inch woofer operating @ 400 Hz IMO ! Consider how directional the speaker will be @ 400 Hz and it's large mass ( relative ) with it's accompanying cone coloration ..."
Four hundred hertz is probably more than two octaves below that woofer's upper rolloff frequency, so it will be plenty "fast" enough to do its job. The radiation pattern will be fairly wide at that frequency, and the cone will probably still be pistonic.
|
Mapman,
Nothing wrong with larger woofers, horses for courses!400hz @ 12db is a bit high for that particular woofer IMO
|
Bass is pretty much omnidirectional until about 500 Hz. Running even a 15 inch woofer to 400 Hz should be fine. Please refer to the Chart 3-6 in this manual (kind of a bible for horns) |
Weseixas- You have been told repeatedly and politely that you and your friend, IMO, don't know what you are talking about. The JBL L-300 Summit loudspeaker I referenced above crosses from a 15 inch woofer to a horn at 800 HZ. The L-200 does the same at 1200 HZ. If you check another source besides your trusty IMO, you will find numerous examples from other esteemed manufacturers. When you are in this deep, it is usually best to stop digging. |
Weseixas, down at 400 Hz, a 15" woofer has a radiation pattern that's approximately 150 degrees wide.
As far as coloration goes, the larger the cone the more difficult it is to get it to behave well. But as long as the behavior isn't too bad, it's possible to correct it or compensate for it in the crossover. On the other hand the smaller the cone the more excursion is required and (in general) the more the voice coil heats up, and therefore the more coloration we get from the motor going non-linear and/or from thermal compression. These types of coloration cannot be corrected in the crossover.
You mentioned coloration from the backwave energy of a large cone. For a given SPL, a large cone and a small cone are moving essentially the same amount of air, so we have the same amount of backwave energy to deal with. A large cone has more area for reflected backwave energy to strike and re-radiate through, but it usually has a larger box which can make better use of damping material to attenuate that backwave energy. I can offer up a link to anecdotal evidence that a good large cone can be low enough in coloration to compete with a good planar.
The main reason I like large cones has to do with radiation pattern control, another topic for another thread.
Having worked with cones large and small for many years (started as an amateur in 1979, turned pro in 2005), in my opinion a good large cone usually has greater performance potential than a good small cone - BUT it is usually a lot harder to work with.
Duke |
Hello Duke ,
Thanks for the response and i'm sure a polar plot on that 15 inch woofer will prove what we are discussing. The published data including the response curve on both drivers will require eq-ing IMO for that speaker to be listenable, well unless it is being used for Sound reinforcement.
I could not find any data on the horn driver with that Horn type that is being used. The horn is beautifully made and the type of wood being used , from experience offers decent damping off setting the natural ringing of the driver in the 5 K range as confirmed by it's impedance curve.
A pity they never published the phase response , the woofer
also shows appreciable breakup.
All in all actually pretty decent driver Specs on the horn and below such on the woofer. I would work with the horn driver , but get a much better woofer for the application as this one appears better for sound reinforcement and since this is for domestic use the super high power handling is not a concern.......
Macrojack,
Hello to you 2 sir and many happies, get well soon .... |
Hi Weseixas,
"The published data including the response curve on both drivers will require eq-ing IMO for that speaker to be listenable..."
Quite right you are! Aggressive equalization is virtually always required with such systems, and it's the crossover designer's job to do it. The published curves for the drivers only indicate how they start out, not how they end up. If you were evaluating the system based on how the individual driver curves start out (which makes perfect sense until someone tells you otherwise), no wonder you were skeptical! The published "before crossover/EQ" curves for the drivers I use look pretty awful at first glance, and the curves I actually measure before starting on the crossover are even worse.
The most useful curve for evaluating a compression driver is the "plane wave tube" curve, which is supplied by some manufacturers. Ideally, this curve slopes down uniformly without significant peaks or dips. Any curve measured on a horn has that horn's characteristics superimposed on the compression driver's output, which complicates any attempt to evaluate the driver. |
All this talk is passing over my head at this point but I found a specification page for my woofer that may provide some clarification or narrow the discussion.
http://www.rcf.it/products/precision-transducers/low-frequency-transducers/l15p530
Is there anything useful in there?
Bill suggested I replace my native JBL LE 15B woofers with these because they are lighter, faster and more efficient. |
Macro,
Interesting technical details to learn, but if things sound good in your setup I think that's all that really matters from a user's perspective. Nuts and bolts specs on drivers and components are fine but do not indicate the final result as I believe has been pointed out already. |
Mapman - I agree completely. The proof is in the pudding - not in the recipe. Nonetheless, there is a reasonable ability to predict outcome based on past trials and failures. In this regard, specifications are surely useful to designers and scientists in general. For a guy like me, they are just numbers and do not transfer information that can help me decide.
Long ago I realized that I could read people better than I can read blueprints, so I make it a practice to choose someone whose advice I feel I can trust. While this approach generally works out well for me, I have had a few bad haircuts. In the case of deciding to trust Bill Woods, I was rewarded handsomely. He has a sterling and lengthy resume and has been chosen to assist many manufacturers as a designer and consultant. So I called him on the phone and found someone I could relate to immediately.
That's what eventually brought me to where I am now believing that the potential for horn speaker systems is barely being scratched. Right now we seem to be in the eccentric, mad scientist phase but it seems likely that a bigger market and more conscious development are just around the corner.
Are you a cartographer? |
Macro, you should look into getting a true horn for that compression driver. What you have looks more like a megaphone than a horn. I don't doubt you are pleased with the sound from it but I wonder what it would sound like with what I would call a true horn. The elevenhorn web site is a bit weak, hard to navigate and not much info, but I don't think anybody is selling horns like these. http://www.jeffreywjackson.com/this thread has been going so long I forget if I've already posted this |
Herman - You have posted this already - or someone has - I remember looking at it.
Here's an explanation as to why I use my megaphone:
http://www.acoustichorn.com/tech/conical-horn-geometry/
I would urge everyone who has a genuine interest in this topic to read the explanation offered in the above link. |
No matter what his rational for doing so what you have is an approximation of a horn. The reason for doing so is simple. It is much easier to make a wooden cone with flat panels than a true horn. From what I've read these compromises really become audible as frequency increases. I have no basis for this conclusion other than logic as I have never heard your cones, but if an approximation of a horn is good it seems logical that a true horn would be even better.
What's the price on yours? I can't get the link to work. |
My horns are the AH 300. Price is around $2800/pr.
The link works for me. Go to the Acoustic Horn Company homepage. Then click on "How They Work". Then select "Conical Horn Geometry". That process will take you to the page I linked.
In this article, Bill explains his reasons (and how he reached them) for using the conical horn rather than something flared.
How do you determine what is a "true horn"? It would seem that you have set an arbitrary picture in your mind of what a horn is to the exclusion of any variant. |
"Are you a cartographer?"
I am a software engineer with a background in digital cartography and related systems. |
Is that for the horn or the horn + driver? If for the horn that's pretty expensive. You can get a solid wood horn from Jeffrey for a whole lot less. I tried http://www.acoustichorn.com on 2 computers and can't get anywhere. It would seem that you have set an arbitrary picture in your mind of what a horn is to the exclusion of any variant. Not really. You can see from my system I have 2 variants. If possible I would have constructed the bass horn as a continuous flare but it would have been impossibly difficult. From what I am told by people who I trust a flare is better than a cone.. I am open to other possibilities. I didn't say yours are bad, I simply suggested you might want to explore other possibilities. You seem a bit defensive. . |
Herman - I just clicked on the link in your entry above and it took me directly to Bill's homepage.
Are other people having a problem accessing Acoustichorn.com? |
Here's agood replacement driver for you Microjack!
http://www.eighteensound.com/index.aspx?mainMenu=view_product&pid=232 |
Herman wrote: "Macro, you should look into getting a true horn for that compression driver. What you have looks more like a megaphone than a horn. I don't doubt you are pleased with the sound from it but I wonder what it would sound like with what I would call a true horn."
The horns Bill Woods makes are conicals, which are onstant-directivity type. Equalization is essential with a conical (or any other constant-directivity horn); if not equalized properly, it does indeed sound like a megaphone. But once equalized properly, they have a very desirable characteristic. Let me explain:
A compression driver all by itself (no horn) will have a very wide pattern at the lower end of its range and a narrow pattern at the upper end - just like any direct-radiator piston. When this output is forced into a constant angle by a conicial horn, the result is over-emphasis of the lower end of the driver's spectrum (megaphone effect). Without the horn, the response was good on-axis, but poor off-axis; now with the conical horn, it is equally bad both on-axis and off-axis. But this is actually a window of opportunity - when we fix one, we also fix the other! So we equalize in the crossover, and now not only is there no megaphone effect, but the sound is quite uniform across the entire angle that the horn covers. In my opinion this is very desirable and well worth all the trouble we just went through, as now the reverberant energy will have nearly the same spectral balance as the first-arrial sound (a characteristic of live voices and instruments that most speakers fail to emulate).
One very slight downside to a round horn is that the horn's mouth reflection is equidistant from the central axis, which results in an on-axis dip. The location of this dip varies with the diameter of the horn and the listening distance. But the fix is quite simple: Listen from about ten degrees off-axis, and the dip disappears.
Duke |
Macrojack I took at look at the spec sheet for the woofer in your speakers, and it's quite impressive. The response curve looks unusually good, and the parameters predict excellent bass power and extension in a suitable large cabinet (which is not always the case with 15" prosound woofers).
Also, sorry about the typo in my last post; "...which are onstant-directivity type" should read "...which are constant-directivity types".
Duke |
Duke - Once again you have shown yourself to be gracious, considerate and knowledgeable. So, thank you again.
As I mentioned above, I am not technically inclined and therefore not technically proficient. Awareness of that fact leads me to choose an expert upon whom I feel I can depend. These people are carefully chosen and adopted gradually unless I can determine through research that they are what I hope them to be.
With Bill Woods, I felt no need to approach with caution. He is a well-respected and highly sought expert in the field of loudspeakers and one of the leaders in horn research. Tom Danley, according to Bill, is likely the king of that field today.
Horns are not so simple as many here seem to believe and the level of misunderstanding shown in this thread reveals and reinforces the need for further learning. Bill has worked at this for over 30 years and knows whereof he speaks. I urge all of you to visit his website and read every word he shares.
The Danley Tapped Horns, including the SPUD, demonstrate that new ground is being broken in horn design even now. The tossing around of conventional wisdom about horns and what they should look like reminds me of the yogurt, honey and sprouts era of nutritional wisdom. Lots of people still think that's what it entails.
As I said earlier in this thread, too many people are unable to differentiate between what they actually know and what they have chosen to believe. Most of us know almost nothing about horns as is evidenced by the negative comments some have seen fit to post. Of course, there are drawbacks to horn speakers such as size and cost but both of those issues have been addressed to some degree and, no doubt, will be further improved with time. Every approach has compromises and tradeoffs and not everything is a workable solution for everybody. However, the purpose of this thread is to overcome misinformation and share what we actually know. Whether or not my system represents the best options or I am an expert has no bearing on the topic as a whole.
Personally I think, from the experience I have had with my horns so far, that the upside here is tremendous and that DSP is probably the key. Passive crossovers are destined to join the typewriter and the abacus. |
"Most of us know almost nothing about horns as is evidenced by the negative comments some have seen fit to post. "
LEts not sugar coat it. Most negative comments are based on actual personal experiences that should not be discounted in an unbiased discussion. There are many bad examples of horn implementation out there over the years as well as good. This alone indicates horns have potential, but are not a panacea. I believe that to be true and that people considering horns should be aware of both sides of the story. |
MIcrojack, I can't fully include you as a horn guy if you don't use bass horns. :-) Hybrids are for cowards. :-)
Just kidding here. I almost gave up and went the box route for the bass. I'm not quite ready to do that yet. I may have to a some point if the vintage pro drivers I use become any harder to find in good condition.
I am also in disagreement with the use of digital filtering. I understand the issues that digital processing can address, but it simply doesn't sound better to me. Different, yes. I would rather live with a little shout or whatever, than lose information. Matter of fact, I would rather go back to using passive speaker level xovers than use DSP.
Bill has indeed revived the conical horn. From what little I know on this subject, the conical was studied a bit back in 50's or 60's but then most turned to other approaches. The claims regarding the lack of phase distortion with conicals is interesting. Thus my desire to model that at some point. But for those who think building a conical is easy, think again. Those 16 or so slats have to identical or there will be un-eveness, which defeats the reason that the conical does what it does.
I would say, however, that tractrix is still the more preferred approach at this point. |
I think the advice I was given by Ralph when I asked him if he prefers a horn system or electrostatic speaker when using his electronics and all else being equal fits 100% into this thread and his response was "it really depends on the speaker rather than the technology. Its the 'all else being equal' part that prevents an answer beyond that. Either one can be awesome or suck really bad." I some day do wish to explore a horn system and this thread has given me some of the understanding needed to do so. |
I'm not seeking inclusion. My horns are made of 12 identical cherry wood panels. Dan is right about the need for uniform perfection in the horn. The use of non-conical designs has as much to do with a desire to increase horizontal dispersion as it does any other consideration.
Please - please - please read what Bill has to say about his reasons for choosing the conical approach before offering any more of your uninformed preferences.
Over and over there come these statements of preference without any justification or explanation. Maybe you actually know what you are talking about but aside from Duke or Ralph, I don't recall hearing from anyone who has actually done any of this. Before you ask, I have not either. But if you read what I have had to say, you will notice that I make no pretense at expertise.
Merely saying "I loathe horns" offers nothing useful. Claiming that a conical is not a real horn is just stupid, and having heard a lousy sounding horn 18 years ago at a concert or in a Cerwin Vega frat house system doesn't really serve as the basis for bashing an entire category.
Little is known about horns by the general public and I will stand by my belief that there is a lot more to be discovered as we strive to do so.
DSP does not deprive us of info. I find mine provides exceptional detail in concert with the horns. Micro dynamics are downright amazing. Just hearing the crowd noise in the background at televised sporting events is a thrill.
There may be legitimate reasons for digiphobes to shun DSP but loss of information is not one of them. |
There is not way to go from analog, to digital, and back to analog without losing information. That is just a physical fact. |
I think Dan_ed is correct as the signal reproduced is a approxmation of the original,close but not exact.
As far as being able to hear a difference is probally based on how well the whole process performs and what the ear can detect. |
Reproduced sound is merely an approximation of the original sound. How faithful that reproduction is depends on many facets and parameters. Trading better performance in one area for somehow compromised performance in another is what we mean when we talk about trade-offs. For some, the trade-offs in utilizing digital rather than analog might prove attractive. And it is very possible that the diminishment we see as factually inevitable may be practically absent. |
Yes, Microjack. Exactly. It is all about trade-offs. I have heard my system using both digital and analog active line level crossovers. There is no question things change differently with the two approaches. I don't like what I hear with a digital filter in the signal path, others may be perfectly happy with it. All I wish to get across is that there is more than one way, just as there is more than one way to design a horn that performs very well. |
Macrojack, you had me up until the DSP part. I've spent a lot of time with digital (using both DSP and plain vanilla) and analog recording systems. We use both in our recording studio. While digital falls flat on its face using the master files against the same thing on analog, DSP can only hope to make it worse, in the process of whatever its doing: EQ, compression, decompression, whatever.
I'm happy to keep an open mind but the DSP thing is really going to have to work at it to win me over.
Based on what Duke has imparted I would really like to try a conical horn, combined with a proper field-coil driver and crossover. It really **does** seem as if the potential of horns is still untapped. |
So Ralph, I take it you aren't seeing the untapped potential of DSP. |
