 
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
|
|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
98.16.77.230
I have owned a LOT of different speaker systems over the years. I have been musing recently over a question I pose now for some discussion. It regards the quality of sound produced by horn-loaded versus electrostatic speakers, more specifically, Quad ESL-63s vs. Altec Lansing Model 19s. (I have also owned Magnepan MG 1.6 QRs, Klipschorns and Klipsch Cornwalls, so my experience with planars and horns is not limited solely to the two systems I'm discussing here.)
I have owned both of these systems and had them together in my listening room for over a year. I sold the Model 19s, much to my regret, but doubt I could ever give up my Quads. So here's the question...
Electrostatic are pretty well known as "fast" speakers. (I recall the ESL-63 demo of reproducing square waves.) Yet, to my ears, their onset transients are slightly rounded and smooth-sounding compared to the horn-loaded treble of the model 19s, which sounded crisper. On orchestral strings, I prefer the Quads that seem to have both the rosiny bite, sheen and good character of this instrument while the horns could sound a bit screechy. On other instruments, banjo for example, the crisper sounding horns seemed to get the metallic twang of a plucked banjo string down while the ESLs seemed slightly to soften them.
I wonder if others have noticed these kinds of differences, and to what do they attribute them?
Do you consider horns "clean" or to exaggerate slightly the edges of reproduced sound, something like the way Photoshop's "sharpen" filter seems to crisp up some imagery to its benefit, but can add an artificial crispness to others?
Do the large radiating surfaces of the Quads and other planars, diffuse the focus of reproduced sounds, or are there other factors involved that might account for the differences I'm discussing.
George
Follow Ups:
The dipole radiation pattern of a well-set-up planar is a distinct advantage in my opinion, as it adds spectrally-correct reverberant energy that arrives after a pretty good time delay ("well-set-up" implying "several feet out from the wall"). This is subjectively desirable not only from the standpoint of timbral richness, but also clarity! I realize that's counter-intuitive, but studies of speech intelligibility have shown that reflections done right actually enhance, rather than degrade, clarity. Dr. Floyd Toole opines that this is because the ear can better decipher complex sounds if it gets multiple "looks" via reflections.
I have had the good fortune of being a dealer for a full-range electrostatic for many years, and a designer of horn speakers for about half as many years. While philosophically coming from opposite ends of the spectrum, imo these types done well score a closer approach to the real thing than most conventional speakers. The ideal might be either an electrostat with the liveliness and impact and conveyance of emotion of a good horn, or a horn with the inner harmonic detail, openness, timbre, and "feel" of a good electrostat. Until then, we picks our poison.
Duke
Me being a dealer makes you leery?? It gets worse... I'm a manufacturer too.
After my CES 2010 coverage I made two best of lists. The 5 best rooms under $10k (based on speaker price) and 5 best above $10k.
I had King Sound Electrostats, Silbatone Aporia full range horn, Acapella High Viloncello II (pseudo horn), Trenner and Freidl Ra Box horn and perhaps I'm forgetting something.
And Quad sounded good too.
The panels have a low colouration factor that people can't live without and they seem not to notice the lack of dynamics or tha ability to load a room to get instruments to sound like they have any real presence (no matter the amp). On the other hand they're as clear and holographic as can be and soundstage like mad.
Horns do the scale macro-dynamics and spittyness you can almost feel coming out of the trumpet. Big loud jazz bands and it's difficult to beat even if one complains about box colouration or whatever to me it's the old I want 95% of the music with 5% distortion than 80% of the music with 0.001% distortion if I had to choose.
I didn't much care for the old Quads - the ESL 63 I heard in Vancouver as a trade-in and I was not at all impressed - IMO the new ones are much better - Kind Sound has more drive and bass for half the price which is why I like them. Soundlabs is good but too big and too expensive for what you get IMO. If you listen to rock pop trance jazz with horn instruments for a significant portion of your listening I go horns. If you listen to symphnies heavy on strings, woodwinds or opera with moving singers panning left to right at modest levels - panels.
If you listen to both like me then you buy something else.
Horns will always add an element of distortion. It's just physics. That is what you are hearing (as you likely already know). I'm surprised you would compare horn speakers with ESL's...horns are employed for their sensitivity. ESL's are for people who don't need the sensitivity, and who also don't mind dipolar radiation. Frankly, ESL's always sound like plastic rattling in the wind, to me...but are superb for very quiet listening.
I've not heard the ESL63's, but I have heard the modern version, at a dealer in SF back in 2005 (the only time I have yet ventured to the west coast!)
Horns seem to vary wildly in their quality and design...By the way, recently I googled DIY midrange horns, and found the guy who makes "tractrix" flares for compression drivers...out of, get this...papier mache! He sells them for only $1000 each...
Interesting you mention Photoshop. There are many ways to sharpen in Photoshop. Depending on the type of file and type of camera (and how clean the file is)...I've found I like to employ the "detail" slider in Camera Raw as much as I can (even if it's only a little bit...sometimes it can be a lot).
It's really not all that difficult to determine the radius, and how much sharpening the file can get away with. Just make sure you always view the file at the final size it will be used for.
If it's just meant to be viewed online at computer monitor sizes...then view it that way as you edit. If you're going to produce a print, it's best to just view the file full size, pixel for pixel.
As for applying sharpening in the full Photoshop (as a TIFF file or whatever), this is always more destructive than the sharpening performed on the RAW file (even though it appears to be able to be more tweakable).
Carl
Horns have been made of these since horn where 1st made.
I was always told to stay away from horns, so I did, although Edgar's sounded just fine when I heard them a few years ago and look cool to boot!
And trying to come up with a general consensus on performance of Stats to horns? You also have 2 totally different radiation pasterns. That being said stats do not reproduce treble as well as other designs they do have strengths but frequency extremes is not it. The model 19 again not the best treble reproduction and while a neat vintage loudspeaker not really a example of what a good modern horn design can do.
"general consensus" is a redundancy, in fact it is the example more often cited.
How about using another good one: "exact same" in the future...
Wow you can copy a line from the internet good for you now go correct some other perceived slight of the English language.
When a speaker is truly coherent there are less "edges" to the sound because often those transient edges are artifacts either of the driver/horn configuration or because of phase/timing relationships.
I have heard some horn speakers systems (Odeon from Germany for example) that sound very smooth unlike the sharpness heard from Avantgarde and Klipsch. Is it the real wood horns or the drivers used? Is it the crossover design? Not sure but they are nearly as coherent as a full-range electrostat...almost but not quite.
I don't think high frequency transients are being rounded by Quads or other full-range planars because the driver should still be well within its dynamic bandwidth for those sounds. Large bass excursions of course can be limited by the relatively short excursions of planar panels. Probably a lack of distortion in the highs also contributes to the "smooth" sound.
if i may ask, why don't you own quads - your present system appears to lack them but i don't know your history.
thanks.
H.F.N.
I have never owned Quads, but stacked 57s would be pretty nice I think. I don't really like the sound of the Quad 63 that much, it is somehow lacking in clarity compared to some of the other electrostats I have owned.
Here is the list of what I have owned:
Audiostatic ES100
Acoustat 1+1
Acoustat Spectra 2200
Acoustat Spectra 4400
STAX ELS F81
In addition I have owned the following planar magnetic/ribbon speakers:
Apogee Caliper Signature
Infinity IRS Beta
Bohlender Graebener DIY hybrids (using D28.1 driver and 10 inch woofer in a fully active design)
All were more clear, IMO, than the 63, all except the F81s could play louder and more powerfully overally (the Audiostatics only slightly so).
My current Genesis VI speakers are mostly conventional drivers (planar magnetic tweeter front and back) but they are dipolar and have similar characteristics to planars.
.
http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=mug&m=158070
The square wave test is proof of a transient accurate system and nothing more. It does not tell us much about the transient response of the individual drivers. PA horns can exhibit phenomenal transient response sans crossover, but since a 1st order acoustic design using horns is almost unheard of, you won't get transient accurate behavior. Ribbon tweeters, as another example, have excellent transient response, but when used with 3rd and 4th order crossovers (which many require) this results in a non-transient accurate speaker.
There are also other causes of the perception of "sharp edges" with music material on horn systems which may be concerned with directivity or even improper implementation (or complete lack) of constant-directivity equalization for CD horns.
The bottom line is that transient accurate behavior is heard by few and often it cannot be discerned with normal music material but only specific test tone changes which pronounce the effect. I have the ability to literally "toggle" between a LR4 and LR4 phase corrected (transient accurate) design and I gotta say the effect is somewhere between "very subtle" to negligible.
But the measured impulse response is day and night!! ;)
Strange, but it attests to the addage that we can't always hear what we measure, and ergo, it stands to reason that we can't always measure what we hear. It is also possible those who love transient accurate speakers like the specific speakers they have purchased for other reasons, but attribute the bulk of their purchase decision to the transient accurate behavior.
Truthfully, I thought the difference between a (proper acoustic) LR4 and a transient accurate speaker would be much more... dramatic.
Cheers,
Presto
1st order acoustic design using horns is almost unheard of, not around here ;)
The system is not on Inmates under Kloss...
First order horns? C'mon, that's a combination of two very excellent design concepts.
1) First Order
2) Horns
Another way to skin that cat, if a guy is into CD/digital and music servers is to do crossovers in DSP (digital domain) and do all EQ, filters and even phase correction with a single VST plugin...
Yeah. This ain't grand-dad's audio hobby anymore, is it?
Vintage old tech combined with cutting edge new tech...
If nothing else it's a super amount of fun!
So? Quit making me hold my breath here...
Cheers,
Presto
Will email you a pic if you like.
There are horns that can do square waves, and better than about anything else. Check out Danley Synergy horns, not made for hifi market, but they can do it. And not just to one position, but over a wide area.http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showthread.php?2887-Square-Wave-Response-Measured-Acoustically&p=41498&viewfull=1#post41498
Edits: 06/22/12
A friend of mine does the xover for his stuff in the digital domain
via computer.
No phase issues etc.
I have used the DBX Driverack stuff in the pro world but still prefer
my analog EAW processor or Rane analog gear.
Im still not convinced digital is convincing yet BUT this looks cool
I had a number of different combos of cone type speakers and thought many of them good. Then I got a pair of Magnaplaner 20.1s when they were the top of the line. That caused me to realize Id never go back to conventional drivers. The trouble with the 20.1s is that they are hard to drive, espcially with tube amps, and hard to get placed right in the room. Once yu have them properly amped (I ended up with 4 Altec 1570s and a custom tube Xover), and set up, however, they are glorious, if some what slow and thick in the bass. I just got tired of having all the extra equipment burning all the xtra glass, and decided to try something else. Got a good buy on a pair of Klipsch La Scalas. So much easier to drive than the 20.1s and so much more present...real live transients. They made me realize Id never go back to either cones or Maggies. After a while I started to notice some fatigue in the upper mids, and highs. If you take a pair of Klipsch speakers apart its embarassing what cheap components they use...basically zipcord for internal wireing, cheap binding posts, cheap Xovers, etc. Improving thoses certainly smoothed out the Klipsch. Then I got a 21; X 21' room and decided to set up the RCA theatre system (aka Ubangis...7'LX32"hX34"D)Id had in storage for years. For those of you familiar with the Ubangis youll know what Im talking about. Added a set of Tractix type horns, a pair of Altec 288Ks and an Altec N-500 Xover. Grrrreat Googely Moogely. Combining them with all custom built Tom Tutay electronics, and a well damped room, its like nothing Ive heard. So smotthe yet quick I find myself up toil 2-3 am regularly playing album after album. Somethies I think about liquifing the system so I can feed it directly into an IV and pump it directly into my arm...or ear as it may be. Theres a good chance that this system will be at the Capital Audio Fest in Washington DC this July, so if your in the area stop in and say hello, and hear some music the way it should sound...Alive.So my take is get yur front end in order, then get a GOOD set of horn speakers, and forget all the hype.See the link before for an older photo of this system.
Hey CA!
Sorry it took so long to get back to you here, I have been SO busy with kids, life, work etc. YIKES!
Thanks for the detailed description of the system you have there. I really like the sheer magnitude of it all - and those tractrix horns look phenomenal! (Did you build those or have them made?) A friend had an uncle in the bar biz in high school and he was able to borrow a PAIR of klipsch lascala speakers which we tried out in his basement, in his driveway and at a school dance. Yes, they have what I consider to be a very "Klipsch" sound in and around the vocal range, not shrill per say but definately crisp. Seems to augment some sounds and instruments yet detract from others. I have JBL2441 horns on JBL2380 lenses here, and I know what you mean by a horn that can sound smooth yet deliver shocking immediacy and transients. In fact, I was thinking of making tractrix horns for the 2441 a while back but the idea got shelved.
So I've never heard of these (RCA) Ubangi's so I looked them up.
http://itishifi.blogspot.ca/2010/04/rca-theater-bass-horn-ubangi-or-mi-9462.html
Neat stuff - looks like it's made in the spirit of some of the older and very large Altec cabinets. I have some vintage catalogues for the Altec gear and that stuff is physically massive - especially the low frequency horns.
You say it's an older picture, yes, I don't see the LaScalas in there, just the Ubangi's and the Tractrix horns. Say, are you okay with the high end extension of the 288K's? I would much rather go with a driver that goes "all the way up" than to use a driver that requires a supertweeter. Crossing over that high up has some drawbacks, such as inter-driver spacing and it's negative effect on comb filtering at higher crossover frequencies.
I know with the 2441's I can reach down to 600 or even 500 Hz which could mean the use of a driver as large as a high-efficiency 15" (as long as it's not totally horn loaded and is partially direct radiating like the Ubangi's.
You know, I am not sure why but I thought the Altec amps were already transistor, but nope - (2)811-A and (4)5R4GY. Really neato tubes! I bet those 811-A's are not cheap... That is one amp I indeed would love to hear. I have some 300B SET amps here, (1) 300B per monoblock, that I really SHOULD run into those 2441 horns and then use something with more clout for the midbass drivers (like perhaps my Romulus integrated used in "amp" mode). Then I can use DSP active crossovers to drive it all with a multi-channel pre-amp. DSP let's me do CD horn EQ, driver EQ, time alignment and phase correction so I can basically enjoy the impact and immediacy of horns while still getting transient accurate playback per the likes of 1st order acoustic designs and Maggi's, electrostats, etc.
Yeah - I think you've given me horn itch.
The 2441 drivers are sitting there with original aluminum diaphragms. The 300B tube amps are there. The 2380 horns are there. (Or I could build tractrix or Edgar horns). I've been SO caught up in my WMTMW transient accurate speakers that I've been afraid to change anything, but I can easily freeze the design and shelve them for a while!!
All I need now is TIME!! Want to borrow a couple of KIDS for the summer? ha ha ha. Good thing my kinder-aged kids love music...
I don't know how Lady Gaga and LMFAO is going to sound through 300B tubes and horns, but thanks to my kids I will find out... Then it will be some Dvorak and Chopin to sooth the nerves followed by some nice 70's vintage Rock and Roll... Thank God my boy likes Queen. Maybe I can transition him from Queen to maybe Styx and then some other vintage rock that I so love.
Thanks for the great post of your system! It looks large, monolithic and very cool!
Cheers,
Presto
Hey, Presto, thanks for the reply. The RCAs were made to compete against the big Altecs of the day (late 40s I think), for the moving picture business.
I got the Tractiz horns from a buddy, but you can find nice ones online made from wood. If I replace mine Id like what Ive shown in the enclosed photo...just cant spend the $4ooo.oo right now. Theyre made of all wood, and natural glues and shellacs.
Actually, the 811's (better than the 811A's) are not too expensive...usually around $60.00 for a pair of NOS, the only ones worth useing. What I find about the big 1570s and consider, Im playing 165 watts of triode tube into 106db efficient speakers, is the unbeliveable headroom. Allows the presentation to be entirely unstrained, completely relaxed. Where this really shows up is in live performances, like Jefferson Airplane's After Bathing at Baxters, or Iron Butterfly Live, Or The Doors live at the Matrix. After 10pm when the electric power clears up it can get down right scary.Live jazz does the same but its somewhat less noticeable in full scale orchestra...that stuff is hard to record well anyway.
Does anyone out there know how to reach the fellow who is the reigning expert on the Ubangis, Jeff Medved I think his name is? Id like to get some info from him on reduceing the size of the RCA cabinets.
Reducing the size!!! No don't if original keep them that way there's not allot of them about. If you need a different horn sure someone ;) Would buy trade or build you a pair for the RCAs. Please don't destroy them....
Cool love RCA MI kit.
I bet your Quads are faster 0-60 than the horns, but the Quads don't have the full dynamic range the horns do to deliver the full transient dynamic difference.
I wonder if your impression of blurred transients is a matter of the horns, while being slower than the Quads, can accomplich 0-100 and give you the sensation of the full transient where the Quads can't.
They may win 0-60, but can't ever make it to 100.
Agreed. You beat me to it. But I will add just to clarify that it isn't just dynamic range but dynamic linearity, linear change in level as close as possible to the input signal, at all levels. And a well designed dynamic speaker, horn loaded or not, will do this better than a planar.
My guess is that it's the dipole radiation which is responsible for most of the difference, there is more diffuse sound power relative to direct radiated.
I'm assuming that the SPL is not too high--obviously horns have more headroom at high SPL.
Orchestral music seems to do pretty well with dipoles as the playback recreates some of the psychoacoustics of reality.
In real halls your ears pickup a large amount of diffuse sound and not that much direct---your brain actually boosts the perceived level of direct sound. If you recorded in the same seat with omni microphones, it would sound congested and like swimming underwater with all the reflections, that's what the actual sound is but your brain's ASP (analog signal processing) is amazingly good.
Post a Followup:
| FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Top of Page ]
[ Contact Us ]
[ Support/Wish List ]
[ Copyright © 2024, Audio Asylum, all rights reserved ]
