b.d Posted February 6, 2011 Posted February 6, 2011 Actually looks like you tidied up. Looking good too. I like the look of the Onkens, thinking I should have gone wider and shallower as my woofers like wall/corner loading. Maybe I'll build something like yours but with a triangular back to sit snug in the corner...and use current boxes for 20-40hz...But I've vowed never to pick up my rusty circular saw again so maybe not. Much difference in the sound of the woofer? Off to work now when I should be dancing my ass off at Big Day Out to LCD SOundsystem, Tool, Grinderman...
tuyen Posted February 6, 2011 Posted February 6, 2011 hah thanks. I'm missing out on BDO too. Angus and Julia Stone!! Yeah, the woofers are quite a few levels above the Altecs from what I am hearing. I'm feeling a great sense of delicacy and neutrality that matches well with the upper channels. Although I'm using a full range driver in the interim to cover the mid-low channel as I wait for the 160 horns to be completed, so it's a bit oddly setup. Still sounds alright
Guest atilsley Posted February 7, 2011 Posted February 7, 2011 [ATTACH=CONFIG]28724[/ATTACH] For a 160Hz horn, I can't think of anything more stunning than the attached pic from Jackson, of Eleven Horns in the US. 90cm diametre, 100cm deep, weight approx 80kgs.....I want them!!! This one finished in layered Mahogany.
b.d Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 I was chatting with aertex a few days ago about his planned horn project and espousing as I saw it the virtues of digital XO and room correction for complicated 4-way (well any speaker by my reckoning), and just came upon Ebaen gushing over this fabfilter Pure Music EQ plug in I just installed for about $200. (fabfilter being the DSP heart of the Special system under review). Here's adding to that debate: "What the Spatial solution creates is an infrasonic space foundation and power-zone clarity + punch without the usual sub 200Hz penalties. That's the essence. Taking five pages to lead up to this conclusion might admittedly read rather anticlimactic now. To fully appreciate the implications, substitute my five pages with many many years and often tens of thousands of dollars. That's what the average audiophile spends in pursuit of exactly this only to fail miserably. Doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results is the definition of folly of course but it's the very machination that keeps audiophilia ticking. Spatial—and the inevitable competitors to follow—put an end to it. If that's anticlimactic you haven't paid attention. I could get fussy and tell you which subtle qualities still distinguished my usual system (top-end sweetness and harmonic sophistication). But that would dilute the core message. Once 50dB+ digital attenuation had been moved into the analog domain; once speaker matching plus room correction had been accomplished specific to each channel to really linearize the bass response; all the minute audiophile obsessions which usually substitute for the basics—essentials in fact!—flew out the window. Even cleaner than after session one, the system now had life. At very low levels, intelligibility into the very lowest bass was phenomenal. This was ultimate proof of resolution and in-room linearity. The same was true for dynamic reflexes particularly in the micro domain. That's where they matter most to normal home dwellers. As our instinctual reflex to reach for the remote wand and notch up the volume relaxes because we realize it's no longer necessary, a lot of unnatural effort, attention and mental processing disappear. Everything is so clearly laid out that it takes no strain to see. The elephants have left the river to bother some other unlucky audiophile consigned to the old ways. Your waters are undisturbed. The silt has settled. You can see all the way to the bottom. As the earlier impulse response showed, timing and with it subjective speed or freedom from overhang can be made very accurate..." http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/emerald/5.html
Paul Spencer Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Fab filter looks interesting. There are a lot of chances to bugger things up when you have a tool like that, especially if you try to correct the wrong things. Their placement of the Emeralds is a little strange. Very close to side walls.
b.d Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) Looks maybe a meter to the side walls? Dipoles you could perhaps get a way with it. I'm surprised they didnt EQ the very top end up, that looks like steeper roll off that just distance/room having its usual effect. Ya true. I've done damage before and not been to quick to pick up on it. They might be on to something with the idea of having it done remotely by the dealer. Though not for most of us though I suspect. But I think in a way one could also say its easy to bugger up an otherwise great speaker by not having EQ or the option of steep digital slopes. The accounts you read of people dismissing horns a sounding horny and colored for example, well I can hear it too sometimes with 1st order crossovers but never with steeper slopes, so again I'd have to blame lack of recourse to digital flexibility in mucking up otherwise great horns/drivers. And when designing steeper passive XO's, as I'm learning now with my first one, it's not to hard to stuff it up either. I think if one knows enough to correct for drivers nearfield anechoic, and for sub 200hz at the listening position (and to cut rather than boost) then ones ahead of the game. And maybe enough experience to know what sound one is after and when to stop. Edited February 9, 2011 by b.d
Paul Spencer Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 I'd guess with the Emerald speaker, the impression would depend on the tracks chosen. That driver can get nasty, it's a popular one used in the Econowave. My instinct would be to move them in quite a bit in that room. The other day I fired up Behringer Ultracurve DEQ auto EQ after having it out of the system for a while ... the EQ sounded awful! The room curve I used in the past doesn't work at all in the new speakers. My girlfriend picked it up right away - and after her comments that my bass traps don't do anything, I was thinking of kicking her off my review panel for good! (BTW, the bass traps are astoundingly better) I guess people can be switched on with some things, not so much with others. Mostly an observation thing I think. I think Ultracurve was doing a few things it shouldn't have. One of the tricky things with DIY is working out what you really should aim for. The top end part - that is usually present in a farfield measurement and if you take it out you won't like it.
Guest Drizzt Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 It could also be that she identifies that the bass traps made marginal difference whereas you think they made massive amounts of difference because you wanted them to. Just saying :o Devils advocate and all.
b.d Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Auto EQ on the DEQ always sucks I've found. But I wouldnt have thought it would be a good idea using the same curves on different speakers. Looking at the FRs I tend to like, a similar 8db slop between 40hz and 20k, just a lot smoother the slope, without such an obvious knee. I'd agree EQ doesnt make bass traps much less necessary, EQ not doing anything for decay times. My traps make definitely make difference to my ear even if they dont to much to measurably tame the low nodes.
tricka Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Nothing wrong with your ears bd. Dritz on the other hand....
Once was an audiophile Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 tricka said: Dritz on the other hand.... would you like to complete your statement without causing any problems with the moderators?
Keith_W Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Drizzt is already on very shaky ground because his efforts on a few other audio forums in the past couple of weeks have not gone un-noticed. All it will take is for him to attempt to repeat that behaviour here ...
b.d Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Having a squiz around for reference sake I had a look at what I guessed would be a very accurate speaker to start of with, the YG Acoustics Anat Reference http://www.stereophile.com/content/yg-acoustics-anat-reference-ii-professional-loudspeaker-measurements , in-room farfield the roll off in the top end is a bit steeper than what I have, not too dissimilar to the Emerald Physic on first look, but then looking at the axis you see the E.P is well over 30db down at 20hz vs 12db of the Anat. On second though you probably wouldnt want to boost by 30db as you'd either clip the hell out of the top octave or loose resolution down low. So I take back my suggestion to E.P. Perhaps a more capable tweeter though.
Guest Drizzt Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 (edited) tricka said: Nothing wrong with your ears bd. Dritz on the other hand.... I was responding to Paul so I guess your jibe was just an unrelated personal insult ? I believe personal insults warrant a warning at the minimum. Please do not do it again Tricka. Edited February 9, 2011 by Drizzt
Guest Drizzt Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Keith_W said: Drizzt is already on very shaky ground because his efforts on a few other audio forums in the past couple of weeks have not gone un-noticed. All it will take is for him to attempt to repeat that behaviour here ... A little out of your jurisdiction isn't it Keith? Your condescending PM was not welcome by the way, please do not do it again.
Keith_W Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Forgotten your lessons from your 18 month suspension so quickly? Bye-bye, Drizzt.
Paul Spencer Posted February 9, 2011 Posted February 9, 2011 Drizzt, It was a huge difference and it was very much contrary to what I was expecting. Were I to do a demo for you, before and after you'd see what I mean. They are big and ugly though, quite a bit bigger than most would consider doing. One of them is the width of a (small) double mattress. BD, Linkwitz made a very interesting comment about aiming for a non flat response. He said that because stereo is about 30 degrees in angle, we need about a 3-4 db dip on the top end where a stereo phantom image is involved. It's discussed on the latest version of his Orion.
jaspert Posted March 8, 2011 Posted March 8, 2011 Posting a pic (not taken by me) from a HK setup... Drool!
b.d Posted March 8, 2011 Posted March 8, 2011 Looks nice. Cant guess at whats going on there though, looks like a 6-way without even a bass horn. Anyone want to guess at XO points?
jaspert Posted March 8, 2011 Posted March 8, 2011 I think the horns in the Exclusive 2401 are not in use, just the 2 woofers. He uses a mix of Passlabs active 3 way crossovers plus some passive. JCR33 would know more about the system. Some pics taken by my friend a few months ago.
b.d Posted March 8, 2011 Posted March 8, 2011 Tres interesting. Is that rear tweeter in use too? (I'm digging a rear tweeter with my horns at the mo)
jaspert Posted March 8, 2011 Posted March 8, 2011 I couldn't tell you. When i heard it last October, it was not optimized yet with the new XO arriving the day before our visit. Heard from the locals who had revisited him recently, the system performance has improved by 25-30% subjectively. There's also a pair of JBL 18 inch sub at the rear to add some kick when needed.
tuyen Posted March 9, 2011 Posted March 9, 2011 I drool at that setup too. Especially the amount of space he has! I swear, GOTO must use TAD paper cones for their woofers. They look practically identical! :o
Paul Spencer Posted March 9, 2011 Posted March 9, 2011 Looks like a photographic studio and workshop! Some interesting tools in there. Wouldn't we all like to have that kind of space? Especially in a dedicated treated room!
Recommended Posts