When i made rudimentary listening comparisons between the Medomex , and Vitavox S2/LeCleac'h horn, back in february this year, i wrote here about the listening impressions :

http://www.audioasylum.com/cgi/t.mpl?f=hug&m=140475

Made some first open listening tests, and the first impression right out of the box is that it sounds much more natural than Vitavox S2/Lecleach horn, and has great dinamics and lifelike sound.

Now, using the Medomex in a appropriate ~ 5 liter closed cabinet, and well integrated in a finished floor stander speaker system, i was able in the last few days to make appropriate comparisons with my big horns. I don't know how many of you made similar tests.

The difference is enormous, and it is clear that this is due the completely different topologies employed. Sure, it is like comparing apples with strawberrys, but nonetheless, the comparison is revealing, and reveals the character of both systems very clearly . I very much agree with Scotts comment at the above mentioned thread :

None-the-less, I built the twin 5" cone driver midrange/ waveguide you saw in the pic, and although it should not have worked as well as it did, plain and simple, it did. A very neutral sound compared to the horns before.

The Audax sounds softer, more relaxed, and specially with a much more natural timbre. Specially violins and soprano voices sound strident and harsh through the S2/lecleac'h. Drums sound very " in your face ", up to a point that it gets disturbing quit fast. The Audax - has medium efficiency ~ 95db,and not the dynamics, transparency, clarity and detail, but i can listen for hours, without getting tired. Also 3D image of the Audax is much better. I think the room size might also be a decisive factor. Maiby a smaller box simply integrates and combines better, and the big horns would need a bigger room to breath. While the Bass of the Audax is wonderful, defined, and gorgeous tone, the basshorn is of a other league :
fast, transparent and powerful, and great coupling to the room.

How could the virtues of both systems be combined ?

One would be to try to cross the S2/LeCleac'h lower, instead let it run free, to high-pass it at ~ 5khz, and see if i get rid of the harshness.

Make a big waveguide for the Audax, and replace the S2, and lower the efficiency of the other channels with Lpad.

May someone has a suggestion ?

Angelo

 RE: Compression drivers x Cone midrange drivers - Steyr 13:13:12 11/06/09 (15)
 RE: Compression drivers x Cone midrange drivers - angeloitacare 06:34:12 11/07/09 (14)
 RE: Compression drivers x Cone midrange drivers - freddyi 09:09:51 11/08/09 (13)
 RE: Compression drivers x Cone midrange drivers - angeloitacare 13:31:06 11/08/09 (12)
 RE: Compression drivers x Cone midrange drivers - Jmmlc 00:20:28 11/10/09 (9)
 RE: Compression drivers x Cone midrange drivers - angeloitacare 01:55:45 11/10/09 (8)
 RE: Compression drivers x Cone midrange drivers - Jmmlc 03:10:28 11/10/09 (7)
 RE: Compression drivers x Cone midrange drivers - angeloitacare 04:13:43 11/10/09 (6)
 RE: Compression drivers x Cone midrange drivers - Jmmlc 09:01:38 11/10/09 (5)
 RE: Compression drivers x Cone midrange drivers - angeloitacare 16:38:19 11/10/09 (4)
 RE: Compression drivers x Cone midrange drivers - Jmmlc 23:09:19 11/12/09 (1)
 RE: Compression drivers x Cone midrange drivers - angeloitacare 02:00:37 11/13/09 (0)
 A question - JoshK 07:33:05 11/11/09 (1)
 RE: A question - angeloitacare 08:26:34 11/11/09 (0)
 RE: Compression drivers x Cone midrange drivers - freddyi 07:41:46 11/09/09 (1)
 RE: Compression drivers x Cone midrange drivers - angeloitacare 08:06:17 11/09/09 (0)

Seems to be a quit impressive system. Any pics ?

I also have many other loudspeaker designs about. I do know its hard to sit close to the large horn rigs unless designed for such.

How would large horns for near field listening be designed then ?

Also that non horn designs can sound wonderful. And I use both. Some of larger horn systems sounded very real but after a hour or so they kind of fatigued ones ear. I at the moment am enjoying a raal ribbon seas x-2 combo sim too pic.

I would love to hear the RAAL's, specially in combination with my new speaker.

But also my front horn system. All I can suggest is that maybe your mid horns too large, drivers covering too much range.

The S2 covers from 1000hz all the way up. That was what i thought : maiby cross it lower, lets say ~ 5-6khz ?

Thus tweeters too far from mid horn, thus both too far from mid bass horn, than you more distance needed to integrate. I havent had much luck running comp drivers lower than 800hz. They seem to get shouty and integration problems due to horn size also prop up. YMMV

I tried also to cross the S2 at 500hz, but the whole system sounded somehow unbalanced.

The problem seems to be with your S2, they are problematic. I encourage you to use another compression driver (Yamaha, Onken, Goto, RCA, WE...)and to cross lower than 1000Hz.

Best regards from Paris, France

Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h

the JMMLC horn profile is the most evolved and advanced, as more than onces shown here, and other forums.I have tried different crossover points with S2, also 500hz. That didn't sound so good. Having used a series of different compression drivers, Altec 802d, 288-16g, BMS 4592nd, Radian 950nd, and last not least now the S2, i think S2 sounds best amongst all these. The Radian sounds very close to S2. What some "experts" say being the best range of reproduction of S2, the upper midrange, is where i think its problematic. To reproduce above 1khz, i could use a quit smaller horn. I could also try cross at ~ 5khz, similar to most configurations like Goto uses, and see how it would behave. But i am not motivated now to start tweaking, and trying out other different things.... Tone in the midrange of the Medomex is simply gorgeous,a cone midrange in a small wave-guide to control directivity, is the direction i want to explore more, next. I am wondering how a Audax PR170M0 in a JMMLC horn would behave.

Angelo

i do by no means want to assert and have that moronic pretension, that my observations, listening impressions and preferences should have general validity, and be shared by other audiophiles. IMHO, two local audiophiles which came have a listen , shared my impressions, and preferred by far the Audax. Carlos shared his impressions at a Brazilian Audio Forum :

Fui ouvir as novas caixas e tive uma grata surpresa. As caixas são muito agradáveis de se ouvir, soam naturais e o palco formado é fenomenal. Se a naturalidade já era notória enquanto ouvíamos os CD's, quando o vinil Jazz At The Pawnshop começou a girar no prato... sem palavras. Uma pena, já que o tempo para mim estava curto e tive que ir embora. Não sei se a comparação com as caixas maiores (Golias, chamadas assim somente nesta mensagem, uma vez que o nome verdadeiro é Eikon), que hoje estão na sala do Angelo, ou melhor, bem maiores, é válida, mas, para o meu gosto, as menores (Davi) tomariam o lugar das maiores. As novas têm, sem sombra de dúvida, melhor interação com a sala e o posicionamento fica bem mais adequado. Percebam que não estou falando da qualidade das caixas isoladamente, mas da percepção que tive de uma melhor interação com a sala. As maiores tocam muito e têm alguns atributos melhores (conforme citou o Angelo no forum dele: "The big horns in comparison have more dynamics, better transients, precision and transparency...") , mas certamente precisam de uma sala maior para mostrarem todo o potencial que possuem. Ao meu ver, elas ficam um pouco "espremidas" e muito próximas da parede do fundo, pois além do módulo das cornetas, existem dois módulos para os graves, cada um encostado nas paredes laterais.

I do like the spacious and wide dispersion characteristics of the Audax,
but the main difference is TONE and timbre, and for my understanding and perception, a more natural reproduction, which becomes most obvious with voices and violin. I doubt btw. many, even french audiophiles, have heard the Medomex.

Angelo

• http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/100392-beyond-ariel

OK, I understand that you have no pulse measurements of the S2 on the horn. Please, don't dismiss measurements, in many case they are helpful in analysing the origin of a problem. A Le Cleac'h horn doesn't shout and should sound as if it is "in your face".

If you horn set-up cannot be listened at small listening distance then probably things can be improved with the help of measurements.

More and more my opinion is that a good horn system must be listened at short distance (and at angle from the loudspeakers for which diaphony is reduced). The size of the auditorium is not a problem if it is treated. (In Japan where you can find more home horn systems than everywhere in the world a 25 square meters room is considered as very large...

Best regards from Paris, France

Jean-Michel Le Cléac'h