Horns are bad

[Robert Morein]

Horns are bad. I became personally acquainted with this fact by ownership of
a Klipsch center channel, which had their "Tractrix" horn on the tweet, the
design of which supposedly mitigates the badness of horns. Supposedly,
making the horn contour according to the geometric figure known as the
cycloid provides the efficiency boost, without the penalty.

The reason horns are bad is a consequence of the physical concept of "scale
factor." Some problems are scale invariant, and some are not. The horn is an
impedance matching device, for which the physical size is defined in terms
of the wavelength of sound that is propagated through the horn. Horns are in
wide use to match a physical media with a high impedance to a physical media
with a low impedance, for both sonic, and electromagnetic applications.

However, for a broadband audio signal, there is no single scale factor. The
"size" of the horn depends upon the wavelength, but as there is no single
wavelength in an audio signal, the horn appears to be of varying "size",
depending upon the frequency under consideration. The result is that sound
propagated through a horn has less phase coherence than was present at the
source.

As a counter to the above, one might say that all speakers, except those
with first order crossovers and sloped baffles, shift phase wildly anyway.
The ear is said to be largely insensitive to the lack of time and phase
coherence between the drivers of a multidriver speaker. So why would the
phase shift induced by a horn be so damaging?

No doubt some of the dictatorial individuals on this group will cite certain
findings that absolutely settle the question. Personally, I feel that phase
shift is probably damaging in the band where the human voice is
concentrated. I have witnessed a wide degree of variation in the degree of
vocal intelligibility of speakers. Some speakers are very pleasant to
listen to, and it comes as a shock that vocal intelligibility is poor.
Others apparently attempt to restore vocal intelligibility by nonflat
response. Still other speakers, a golden few, which seem to include panels,
manage extraordinary vocal intelligibility without any emphasis. Some
dynamic speakers are also in this group, and are not limited to simple
crossover designs. Perhaps these speakers avoid the critical region in
choice of crossover.

Returning to the original point, I have not personally been impressed by
horns. But despite the teasing title of this post, I do not believe horns
are bad. Like many other very pleasant speakers, horns probably give up the
ultimate in vocal intelligibility as an innate attribute of "hornness."

[Bret Ludwig]

Robert Morein wrote:
<<snip>>
> Returning to the original point, I have not personally been impressed by
> horns. But despite the teasing title of this post, I do not believe horns
> are bad. Like many other very pleasant speakers, horns probably give up the
> ultimate in vocal intelligibility as an innate attribute of "hornness."

In my personal experience, horns have been the ONLY way I was ever
able to figure out some lyrics, particularly Mick Jagger's and a couple
of other mushmouths.

[Robert Morein]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Robert Morein wrote:
> <<snip>>
>> Returning to the original point, I have not personally been impressed by
>> horns. But despite the teasing title of this post, I do not believe horns
>> are bad. Like many other very pleasant speakers, horns probably give up
>> the
>> ultimate in vocal intelligibility as an innate attribute of "hornness."
>
> In my personal experience, horns have been the ONLY way I was ever
> able to figure out some lyrics, particularly Mick Jagger's and a couple
> of other mushmouths.
>
Brett, you're a horny guy.

[[email protected]]

Robert Morein wrote:
> Horns are bad.

----------------

you know I hate statements like this, but I have to agree.
I had some Klipsh Heresys, and I wanted to like them so bad,
so efficient,
but they are just so BRIGHT, and tinny,
and irritating to me after awhile. I wanted to cover
the horn with felt or something, anything to make
it stop hurting my ears...


I got them from a crazy homeless looking dude at a goodwill,
who said he had Klipsch speakers that had "blowers", went to his
insane apartment filled with crap, and they were sitting there,
mint condition.

[phatty mo]

I've never been a real fan of horns...

*plugs nose*
They always seem to sound like this.. "Honkey" or "Nasal"


Maybe it's just me..?



Robert Morein wrote:
> Horns are bad. I became personally acquainted with this fact by ownership of
> a Klipsch center channel, which had their "Tractrix" horn on the tweet, the
> design of which supposedly mitigates the badness of horns. Supposedly,
> making the horn contour according to the geometric figure known as the
> cycloid provides the efficiency boost, without the penalty.
>
> The reason horns are bad is a consequence of the physical concept of "scale
> factor." Some problems are scale invariant, and some are not. The horn is an
> impedance matching device, for which the physical size is defined in terms
> of the wavelength of sound that is propagated through the horn. Horns are in
> wide use to match a physical media with a high impedance to a physical media
> with a low impedance, for both sonic, and electromagnetic applications.
>
> However, for a broadband audio signal, there is no single scale factor. The
> "size" of the horn depends upon the wavelength, but as there is no single
> wavelength in an audio signal, the horn appears to be of varying "size",
> depending upon the frequency under consideration. The result is that sound
> propagated through a horn has less phase coherence than was present at the
> source.
>
> As a counter to the above, one might say that all speakers, except those
> with first order crossovers and sloped baffles, shift phase wildly anyway.
> The ear is said to be largely insensitive to the lack of time and phase
> coherence between the drivers of a multidriver speaker. So why would the
> phase shift induced by a horn be so damaging?
>
> No doubt some of the dictatorial individuals on this group will cite certain
> findings that absolutely settle the question. Personally, I feel that phase
> shift is probably damaging in the band where the human voice is
> concentrated. I have witnessed a wide degree of variation in the degree of
> vocal intelligibility of speakers. Some speakers are very pleasant to
> listen to, and it comes as a shock that vocal intelligibility is poor.
> Others apparently attempt to restore vocal intelligibility by nonflat
> response. Still other speakers, a golden few, which seem to include panels,
> manage extraordinary vocal intelligibility without any emphasis. Some
> dynamic speakers are also in this group, and are not limited to simple
> crossover designs. Perhaps these speakers avoid the critical region in
> choice of crossover.
>
> Returning to the original point, I have not personally been impressed by
> horns. But despite the teasing title of this post, I do not believe horns
> are bad. Like many other very pleasant speakers, horns probably give up the
> ultimate in vocal intelligibility as an innate attribute of "hornness."
>
>
>

[Robert Morein]

"phatty mo" > wrote in message
...
> I've never been a real fan of horns...
>
> *plugs nose*
> They always seem to sound like this.. "Honkey" or "Nasal"
>
>
> Maybe it's just me..?
>
You have company.

[Pooh Bear]

phatty mo wrote:

> I've never been a real fan of horns...
>
> *plugs nose*
> They always seem to sound like this.. "Honkey" or "Nasal"
>
> Maybe it's just me..?

Nope. Some horns can be really bad in that repsect. Consider what an old style
loudhailer sounds like for example. Same kind of thing.

Graham

[Robert Morein]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> phatty mo wrote:
>
>> I've never been a real fan of horns...
>>
>> *plugs nose*
>> They always seem to sound like this.. "Honkey" or "Nasal"
>>
>> Maybe it's just me..?
>
> Nope. Some horns can be really bad in that repsect. Consider what an old
> style
> loudhailer sounds like for example. Same kind of thing.
>
> Graham
>
Have you heard any you feel are blameless, ie., in your personal "first
rank" ?

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Sat, 31 Dec 2005 20:52:50 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
>"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>>
>> Robert Morein wrote:
>> <<snip>>
>>> Returning to the original point, I have not personally been impressed by
>>> horns. But despite the teasing title of this post, I do not believe horns
>>> are bad. Like many other very pleasant speakers, horns probably give up
>>> the
>>> ultimate in vocal intelligibility as an innate attribute of "hornness."
>>
>> In my personal experience, horns have been the ONLY way I was ever
>> able to figure out some lyrics, particularly Mick Jagger's and a couple
>> of other mushmouths.
>>
>Brett, you're a horny guy.

Acvtually, he just means that those horns were so lower-mid forward
that the *only* thing you could hear were the lyrics.............
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On Sun, 1 Jan 2006 00:26:32 -0500, "Robert Morein"
> wrote:

>
>"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>> phatty mo wrote:
>>
>>> I've never been a real fan of horns...
>>>
>>> *plugs nose*
>>> They always seem to sound like this.. "Honkey" or "Nasal"
>>>
>>> Maybe it's just me..?
>>
>> Nope. Some horns can be really bad in that repsect. Consider what an old
>> style
>> loudhailer sounds like for example. Same kind of thing.
>>
>> Graham
>>
>Have you heard any you feel are blameless, ie., in your personal "first
>rank" ?

Avantgarde.

--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[phatty mo]

Robert Morein wrote:
> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>
>>phatty mo wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I've never been a real fan of horns...
>>>
>>>*plugs nose*
>>>They always seem to sound like this.. "Honkey" or "Nasal"
>>>
>>>Maybe it's just me..?
>>
>>Nope. Some horns can be really bad in that repsect. Consider what an old
>>style
>>loudhailer sounds like for example. Same kind of thing.
>>
>>Graham
>>
>
> Have you heard any you feel are blameless, ie., in your personal "first
> rank" ?
>
>

I havn't really heard many horn speakers,maybe only half a dozen times
in my lifetime.Some were definatly better than others,but they all
seemed to have that bit of "nasal-ness" about them.
I've always kind of veered away from horns because of the "nasal-ness"
so I don't really have much experience with them,but i'm sure there are
some good horns out there,somewhere. I just havn't heard them,yet.

[Jon Conarton]

I, spent years serching for a speaker I could listen to for hours on end
without fatigue. After spending tens of thousands on all sorts of dynamic
electrostatic ribbon etc, I happended to hear a friends Lowther Medallions
(full range single driver, back loaded horns) and I was hooked.
I ended up building the limited edition Fostex FE 166ES-R Back loaded horn
with results far exceeding my expectations. Here is the link where you can
see the finished product http://home.earthlink.net/~conartonj/ What do
they sound like? Take a listen to the Cain & Cain double horn ben at
$5500.00 and you will have a very good idea. I'll never part with these
horns they are without a doubt the most musically satisfying louspeakers I
have ever owned.
Jrook
Atlanta


"Robert Morein" > wrote in message
...
> Horns are bad. I became personally acquainted with this fact by ownership
> of a Klipsch center channel, which had their "Tractrix" horn on the tweet,
> the design of which supposedly mitigates the badness of horns. Supposedly,
> making the horn contour according to the geometric figure known as the
> cycloid provides the efficiency boost, without the penalty.
>
> The reason horns are bad is a consequence of the physical concept of
> "scale factor." Some problems are scale invariant, and some are not. The
> horn is an impedance matching device, for which the physical size is
> defined in terms of the wavelength of sound that is propagated through the
> horn. Horns are in wide use to match a physical media with a high
> impedance to a physical media with a low impedance, for both sonic, and
> electromagnetic applications.
>
> However, for a broadband audio signal, there is no single scale factor.
> The "size" of the horn depends upon the wavelength, but as there is no
> single wavelength in an audio signal, the horn appears to be of varying
> "size", depending upon the frequency under consideration. The result is
> that sound propagated through a horn has less phase coherence than was
> present at the source.
>
> As a counter to the above, one might say that all speakers, except those
> with first order crossovers and sloped baffles, shift phase wildly anyway.
> The ear is said to be largely insensitive to the lack of time and phase
> coherence between the drivers of a multidriver speaker. So why would the
> phase shift induced by a horn be so damaging?
>
> No doubt some of the dictatorial individuals on this group will cite
> certain findings that absolutely settle the question. Personally, I feel
> that phase shift is probably damaging in the band where the human voice is
> concentrated. I have witnessed a wide degree of variation in the degree of
> vocal intelligibility of speakers. Some speakers are very pleasant to
> listen to, and it comes as a shock that vocal intelligibility is poor.
> Others apparently attempt to restore vocal intelligibility by nonflat
> response. Still other speakers, a golden few, which seem to include
> panels, manage extraordinary vocal intelligibility without any emphasis.
> Some dynamic speakers are also in this group, and are not limited to
> simple crossover designs. Perhaps these speakers avoid the critical region
> in choice of crossover.
>
> Returning to the original point, I have not personally been impressed by
> horns. But despite the teasing title of this post, I do not believe horns
> are bad. Like many other very pleasant speakers, horns probably give up
> the ultimate in vocal intelligibility as an innate attribute of
> "hornness."
>
>
>

[Jon Yaeger]

in article , Jon Conarton at
wrote on 1/11/06 8:30 PM:

> I, spent years serching for a speaker I could listen to for hours on end
> without fatigue. After spending tens of thousands on all sorts of dynamic
> electrostatic ribbon etc, I happended to hear a friends Lowther Medallions
> (full range single driver, back loaded horns) and I was hooked.
> I ended up building the limited edition Fostex FE 166ES-R Back loaded horn
> with results far exceeding my expectations. Here is the link where you can
> see the finished product http://home.earthlink.net/~conartonj/ What do
> they sound like? Take a listen to the Cain & Cain double horn ben at
> $5500.00 and you will have a very good idea. I'll never part with these
> horns they are without a doubt the most musically satisfying louspeakers I
> have ever owned.
> Jrook
> Atlanta
>
>
> "Robert Morein" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Horns are bad. I became personally acquainted with this fact by ownership
>> of a Klipsch center channel, which had their "Tractrix" horn on the tweet,
>> the design of which supposedly mitigates the badness of horns. Supposedly,
>> making the horn contour according to the geometric figure known as the
>> cycloid provides the efficiency boost, without the penalty.
>>
>> The reason horns are bad is a consequence of the physical concept of
>> "scale factor." Some problems are scale invariant, and some are not. The
>> horn is an impedance matching device, for which the physical size is
>> defined in terms of the wavelength of sound that is propagated through the
>> horn. Horns are in wide use to match a physical media with a high
>> impedance to a physical media with a low impedance, for both sonic, and
>> electromagnetic applications.
>>
>> However, for a broadband audio signal, there is no single scale factor.
>> The "size" of the horn depends upon the wavelength, but as there is no
>> single wavelength in an audio signal, the horn appears to be of varying
>> "size", depending upon the frequency under consideration. The result is
>> that sound propagated through a horn has less phase coherence than was
>> present at the source.
>>
>> As a counter to the above, one might say that all speakers, except those
>> with first order crossovers and sloped baffles, shift phase wildly anyway.
>> The ear is said to be largely insensitive to the lack of time and phase
>> coherence between the drivers of a multidriver speaker. So why would the
>> phase shift induced by a horn be so damaging?
>>
>> No doubt some of the dictatorial individuals on this group will cite
>> certain findings that absolutely settle the question. Personally, I feel
>> that phase shift is probably damaging in the band where the human voice is
>> concentrated. I have witnessed a wide degree of variation in the degree of
>> vocal intelligibility of speakers. Some speakers are very pleasant to
>> listen to, and it comes as a shock that vocal intelligibility is poor.
>> Others apparently attempt to restore vocal intelligibility by nonflat
>> response. Still other speakers, a golden few, which seem to include
>> panels, manage extraordinary vocal intelligibility without any emphasis.
>> Some dynamic speakers are also in this group, and are not limited to
>> simple crossover designs. Perhaps these speakers avoid the critical region
>> in choice of crossover.
>>
>> Returning to the original point, I have not personally been impressed by
>> horns. But despite the teasing title of this post, I do not believe horns
>> are bad. Like many other very pleasant speakers, horns probably give up
>> the ultimate in vocal intelligibility as an innate attribute of
>> "hornness."
>>
>>
>>



Jon,

I just auditioned a pair of the Cain & Cain single horn ben at Atlanta store
and was really disappointed. Flabby, overstated & distorted bass. It could
have been the amp that drove it, but I doubt it.

I'm looking for a pair of JBL Century 100s if someone wants to part with a
good set.

Jon Y
>

[[email protected]]

I would think that horns have so many inherent physical limitations
that they would never be chosen for audio high-fidelity except where
the absolute need for high-efficiency drivers limits the options.

Consider the 'first use' of horns for electrically driven speakers
'back when'. When headphones were about enough to be able to be heard
effectively and learning from tele*phone* technology, someone hung a
horn on a slightly oversized headphone-type driver... instant 'Loud
Speaker' that could be shared with a number of people. The entire point
of the system was to exaggerate a tiny source such that it could be
heard over background noise. Fidelity did not enter the equation.

They have followed more-or-less down the same path ever since...
projecting sound at maximum perceived volume over the maximum
_DISTANCE_ for at the least amount of power. All sorts of improvements
have been made over the years, but the basic concept and inherent
limitations cannot be overcome. Put very simply, they are:

-horns are very axial... that is they have a very narrow sound stage.
-That narrowness is both horizontal and vertical.
-They rely on reflected sound to produce music.. that is, the path from
the transducer to the ear is neither primary nor direct.

"Nasal" is hardly how I would describe them, but then I have never used
either wine analogies nor human-voice analogies to describe speaker
sound. What I would say is that they are
contaminated/complicated/muddied by artifacts as a product of the
multiple reflections between the primary transducer and the ear.
However well they are designed, _some_ combination of frequencies will
be distorted by either cancellations or harmonics as a result of the
reflections. The shorter the horn path, the less damage is done. After
all, a standard cone-type speaker is not-much-else than a very open
horn.

Then, there is physics involved. If sound is all about moving air, bass
notes require moving lots of air relatively slowly, and treble notes
require moving much less air but much more quickly. The physical
limitations on a horn greatly exaggerate the limitations of the actual
transducer to do both... a full-range horn is an oxymoron in any
meaningful way.

Just yesterday, I experienced a set of OEM Altec PA speakers with a
three-section horn woofer and two 8" standard cone-type tweeters. If
the idea is to project band sound to the 40th row, upper balcony, these
are your beasts.... these and the power to drive them. Not
high-fidelity in your living room.

On a complete aside, I do want to know why it is that individuals will
spend near-luxury car prices on equipment based on assumptions that
appear to defy the laws of physics. Such as full-frequency
single-driver speaker systems, flea-powered amplifiers to drive them...
and so forth. How can even a 70 watt amp (about the limits of a pair of
6550 output tubes) into _any_ single driver produce the the bombard
organ pipe attack in the last movement of the Saint-Saens organ
symphony at anything even faintly resembling concert levels even in a
relatively small listening room? Note that the floor should be shaking
here.... Oh, and the high organ notes should also be equally clear and
at the same time. This is an approximately 30' (thirty foot) pipe and
an approximately 6" (six inch) pipe being played at the same time.


Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[ws]

wrote:
>
> On a complete aside, I do want to know why it is that individuals will
> spend near-luxury car prices on equipment based on assumptions that
> appear to defy the laws of physics. Such as full-frequency
> single-driver speaker systems, flea-powered amplifiers to drive them...
> and so forth. How can even a 70 watt amp (about the limits of a pair of
> 6550 output tubes) into _any_ single driver produce the the bombard
> organ pipe attack in the last movement of the Saint-Saens organ
> symphony at anything even faintly resembling concert levels even in a
> relatively small listening room? Note that the floor should be shaking
> here.... Oh, and the high organ notes should also be equally clear and
> at the same time. This is an approximately 30' (thirty foot) pipe and
> an approximately 6" (six inch) pipe being played at the same time.
>

Erm, their preferred source material is more along the lines of a 2-mic
recording of a singer with ukulele accompaniment?

;-)

WS

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com...


> They have followed more-or-less down the same path ever since...
> projecting sound at maximum perceived volume over the maximum
> _DISTANCE_ for at the least amount of power. All sorts of improvements
> have been made over the years, but the basic concept and inherent
> limitations cannot be overcome. Put very simply, they are:

> -horns are very axial... that is they have a very narrow sound stage.

In fact, waveguides can be built with a wide variety of dispersion patterns.
If one could pick an ideal dispersion pattern, one would probably pick a
narrower one in most cases.

> -That narrowness is both horizontal and vertical.

In fact waveguides can and are construced with dispersion patterns that vary
strongly between horizontal and vertical. The transitions can be made sharp
or gentle.

> -They rely on reflected sound to produce music.

Letsee, just about every direct radiator is mounted on a baffle that is a
pretty good reflector of sound.

> that is, the path from
> the transducer to the ear is neither primary nor direct.

Which is a meaningless criteria.

> Then, there is physics involved. If sound is all about moving air, bass
> notes require moving lots of air relatively slowly, and treble notes
> require moving much less air but much more quickly.

Nonsense - the speed of sound is about the same at all audible frequencies.
In fact radiating sound generally involves no discernable motion of air.
Otherwise, you'd feel a breeze!

>The physical
> limitations on a horn greatly exaggerate the limitations of the actual
> transducer to do both... a full-range horn is an oxymoron in any
> meaningful way.

Full-range direct radiators that actually perform are very rare, as well. In
fact its easier to build an highly effective 2-way system that incorporates
a horn than with direct radiators. However both are easily and frequently
accomplished quite sucessfuly.

> Just yesterday, I experienced a set of OEM Altec PA speakers with a
> three-section horn woofer and two 8" standard cone-type tweeters. If
> the idea is to project band sound to the 40th row, upper balcony, these
> are your beasts.... these and the power to drive them. Not
> high-fidelity in your living room.

SR and Hifi are different beasts, which is not to say that a SR system can't
provide a satisfying sound with good fidelity.

Here's Altec Lansing's web site.

http://www.alteclansing.com/

From it you can readily discern that Altec Lansing does not have any current
production of speakers for SR. Therefore this comment must relate to some
out-of-date product that should never be mentioned in a contemporary
discussion of the capabilities of speakers that incorporate waveguide or
so-called horn speakers.

[Bret Ludwig]

Arny Krueger wrote:
<<snip>>
>
> SR and Hifi are different beasts, which is not to say that a SR system can't
> provide a satisfying sound with good fidelity.
>

Say it isn't so. An amp that's excellent for PA isn't so good for the
house??

> Here's Altec Lansing's web site.
>
> http://www.alteclansing.com/
>
> From it you can readily discern that Altec Lansing does not have any current
> production of speakers for SR. Therefore this comment must relate to some
> out-of-date product that should never be mentioned in a contemporary
> discussion of the capabilities of speakers that incorporate waveguide or
> so-called horn speakers.

No, Arny, the classic Altec Lansing gear sets a benchmark for all
time. It may well be improved on, but Altec Lansing and JBL WERE the
quality driver manufacturers in the United States, a country that
actually did manufacture stuff, for decades. There is still a LOT of
Altec stuff in use, because it was so well built. The Japanese pay very
good money for it. New PA and MI gear often is designed to mimic,
interface with, or fit in the void left by it.

The past, as Faulkner said, is not only not dead, it's not even past.
And as another genius who died the same year as Faulkner might have
added, "And Faulkner should know."

[Arny Krueger]

"Bret Ludwig" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
> <<snip>>
>>
>> SR and Hifi are different beasts, which is not to say that a SR system
>> can't
>> provide a satisfying sound with good fidelity.
>>
>
> Say it isn't so. An amp that's excellent for PA isn't so good for the
> house??
>
>> Here's Altec Lansing's web site.
>>
>> http://www.alteclansing.com/
>>
>> From it you can readily discern that Altec Lansing does not have any
>> current
>> production of speakers for SR. Therefore this comment must relate to some
>> out-of-date product that should never be mentioned in a contemporary
>> discussion of the capabilities of speakers that incorporate waveguide or
>> so-called horn speakers.
>
> No, Arny, the classic Altec Lansing gear sets a benchmark for all
> time.

In the opinion of some Luddites.

>It may well be improved on, but Altec Lansing and JBL WERE the
> quality driver manufacturers in the United States, a country that
> actually did manufacture stuff, for decades. There is still a LOT of
> Altec stuff in use, because it was so well built.

AFAIK there's no classic JBL or Altec stuff much of anyplace but some
luddite's places. JBL still makes good stuff, but none of the stuff that the
Luddites prize is still in production. JBL and technology moved on.

> The Japanese pay very good money for it.

Some Japanese, not all of them.

They also pay very good money for bear's bladder sex cures. Makes who with
a brain want to run right out and get of it that they can?

> New PA and MI gear often is designed to mimic,
> interface with, or fit in the void left by it.

Nonsense. Current SOTA SR and MI gear has moved on.

> The past, as Faulkner said, is not only not dead, it's not even past.
> And as another genius who died the same year as Faulkner might have
> added, "And Faulkner should know."

Like Faukner ever knew the true meaning of life for all of us to emulate.

Bret, just because it can be expressed as poetry, doesn't make it right.

[[email protected]]

Arny:

Please note the interpolations. Google does not conveniently insert the
carats.

> They have followed more-or-less down the same path ever since...
> projecting sound at maximum perceived volume over the maximum
> _DISTANCE_ for at the least amount of power. All sorts of improvements
> have been made over the years, but the basic concept and inherent
> limitations cannot be overcome. Put very simply, they are:
> -horns are very axial... that is they have a very narrow sound stage.


In fact, waveguides can be built with a wide variety of dispersion
patterns.
If one could pick an ideal dispersion pattern, one would probably pick
a
narrower one in most cases.

Why? The sound as projected by a Piano is not narrow. From a clarinet,
perhaps. Speakers should be capable of projecting both with reasonable
accuracy, and not one at the expense of the other.

> -That narrowness is both horizontal and vertical.

In fact waveguides can and are construced with dispersion patterns that
vary
strongly between horizontal and vertical. The transitions can be made
sharp
or gentle.

Sure. A lot can be done with physics and wave-guides. But the point is
to dissipate energy to reflect the original sound. Horns, by their
nature (and the use of waveguides) have a narrow 'sweet spot', as you
allude to above. This makes them more efficient, but less capable of
reproducing natural sound as it was originally made. One can walk
nearly 270 degrees around a piano without substantially changing the
sound as heard. Try that with a horn. Even the best dome tweeters don't
quite make 180 degrees, so don't get me wrong on this. But horns are
much more severely compromised than domes in this way.

> -They rely on reflected sound to produce music.

Letsee, just about every direct radiator is mounted on a baffle that is
a
pretty good reflector of sound.

Sure, again. But at the same time a direct radiator also provides
DIRECT sound. Not nearly-only reflected sound.

> that is, the path from
> the transducer to the ear is neither primary nor direct.

Which is a meaningless criteria.

To whom?

> Then, there is physics involved. If sound is all about moving air, bass
> notes require moving lots of air relatively slowly, and treble notes
> require moving much less air but much more quickly.

Nonsense - the speed of sound is about the same at all audible
frequencies.
In fact radiating sound generally involves no discernable motion of
air.
Otherwise, you'd feel a breeze!

Yeah. I can blow out a candle at about a foot with my woofers using a
20hz tone. And the 3/4" dome tweeter will sure flutter a flame at a
couple of inches. Keep in mind that a well-designed, truly full-range
speaker *system* is capable of causing discernable physical vibrations
if called upon to do so. Visceral reactions, so to speak. So a 15 pound
(or so) speaker with about a 10 pound magnet pushing only a few ounces
of voice-coil and cone material had better be able to move a LOT of air
to create that sort of effect.

>The physical
> limitations on a horn greatly exaggerate the limitations of the actual
> transducer to do both... a full-range horn is an oxymoron in any
> meaningful way.


Full-range direct radiators that actually perform are very rare, as
well. In
fact its easier to build an highly effective 2-way system that
incorporates
a horn than with direct radiators. However both are easily and
frequently
accomplished quite sucessfuly.

Define "effective". Sure, full-range single direct radiators are quite
rare. I would state that they likely do not exist if a really
challenging source is used... I use the Saint-Saens Organ Symphony as
my test-piece, as noted above. And if efficiency is your measure of
'effective', sure a horn will get down to that lower range needing less
power than a direct radiator. And as based on human perception much
below 500hz is non-directional anyway, that may be moot. But unless
that mass of air is moved, most horns are incapable of the required
visceral effect.

> Just yesterday, I experienced a set of OEM Altec PA speakers with a
> three-section horn woofer and two 8" standard cone-type tweeters. If
> the idea is to project band sound to the 40th row, upper balcony, these
> are your beasts.... these and the power to drive them. Not
> high-fidelity in your living room.


SR and Hifi are different beasts, which is not to say that a SR system
can't
provide a satisfying sound with good fidelity.

Here's Altec Lansing's web site.


http://www.alteclansing.com/


>From it you can readily discern that Altec Lansing does not have any
current
production of speakers for SR. Therefore this comment must relate to
some
out-of-date product that should never be mentioned in a contemporary
discussion of the capabilities of speakers that incorporate waveguide
or
so-called horn speakers.

Yikes.... has physics changed that much in 20 years? Have the equations
altered?

You will note that I do not call horns "BAD". I do call them pretty
severe compromises to achieve a very specific set of goals. To me,
those goals have dubious value, for several reasons. First and
foremost, I have -always- had enough power to drive conventional
speakers at substantial, realistic levels and without clipping. Both
tube and SS. Second, I have never been fascinated with
quality-by-measurement, preferring to let my ears drive my choices. It
may just be that I have hamburger taste in audio, but others seem to
think that my various systems are pretty stunning as a whole. But that
I like them is enough.

So, ask YOURSELF the question: If cost is no object, and your goal is
to reproduce all music at realistic levels in the typical residential
setting... not some tweaked-to-a-fare-thee-well listening room focused
on one single chair... what would be your choice of speakers? How would
you drive them, and what would be your test sources?

Since I asked the question, I will state what I have for my primary
system (the one that gets used every day by me and by my wife):

AR3a speakers, cleaned and tweaked crossovers/pots bypassed.
Dynaco 416 power-amp,
Dynaco PAT-5biFet pre-amp
Revox CD player
Revox TT
Any-of-several tuners.
Standard livingroom, about 14 x 16 x 9 feet.

Family Room System:
Also AR3a speakers, but 100% OEM (the pots are good)
Scott LK-150 amp
Dynaco PAS-pre-amp, WIMA caps, Sylvania mil.spec. 5751 tubes (blows
smooth-plate Teles (which I have) out of the water).
Dynaco FM-3
Yamaha CD Changer

The speakers will alternate with a pair of ARM5s or M6s, the tuner &
pre-amp will alternate with a Revox A720 tuner/preamp, or a Scott tuner
and Scott pre-amp.

Lots-O-Other stuff floating around too.... depending on what's passing
through.

No horns involved.

Lots of power, lots of headroom.

My test sources are the Saint-Saens as noted, Kiri Te Kanawa singing
Mozart's Exulatate Jubilata, Vivaldi's Gloria, and a solo harpsichord,
usually Bach. After that group, Bluegrass, Folk, solo guitar (Leo Kotke
or John Fahey) and standard R&R are no challenge.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Pooh Bear]

Bret Ludwig wrote:

> Arny Krueger wrote:
> <<snip>>
> >
> > SR and Hifi are different beasts, which is not to say that a SR system can't
> > provide a satisfying sound with good fidelity.
> >
>
> Say it isn't so. An amp that's excellent for PA isn't so good for the
> house??

I rather suspect he mainly meant the speakers actually.

In any event, a typical SR amplifier in the kilowatt output region does not
tyically measure as well as a high end audiophile product.


> > Here's Altec Lansing's web site.
> >
> > http://www.alteclansing.com/
> >
> > From it you can readily discern that Altec Lansing does not have any current
> > production of speakers for SR. Therefore this comment must relate to some
> > out-of-date product that should never be mentioned in a contemporary
> > discussion of the capabilities of speakers that incorporate waveguide or
> > so-called horn speakers.
>
> No, Arny, the classic Altec Lansing gear sets a benchmark for all
> time.

You ARE joking right ? Those horn loaded cabs wers simply designed to be loud with
the low power valve amps of the day.

> It may well be improved on,

Left standing in the dirt actually !

> but Altec Lansing and JBL WERE the
> quality driver manufacturers in the United States, a country that
> actually did manufacture stuff, for decades. There is still a LOT of
> Altec stuff in use, because it was so well built.

None that I know of for sure. Cinemas re-equipped for Dolby and THX will have long
junked all that stuff.

> The Japanese pay very
> good money for it.

Good luck to them. The Japanese seem to like antiques.

> New PA and MI gear often is designed to mimic,
> interface with, or fit in the void left by it.

NO ! Modern stuff outranks a VOT any day.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com...
> Arny:
>
> Please note the interpolations. Google does not conveniently insert the
> carats.
>
>>> They have followed more-or-less down the same path ever since...
>> projecting sound at maximum perceived volume over the maximum
>> _DISTANCE_ for at the least amount of power. All sorts of improvements
>> have been made over the years, but the basic concept and inherent
>> limitations cannot be overcome. Put very simply, they are:
>> -horns are very axial... that is they have a very narrow sound stage.

> >In fact, waveguides can be built with a wide variety of dispersion
> >patterns.

Which makes my point. Bret was as usual, just being his sweet wrong self.


> >If one could pick an ideal dispersion pattern, one would probably pick a
> narrower one in most cases.

> Why?

One reason is that we're talking about reproduction, not production.

>The sound as projected by a Piano is not narrow.

Yes, but the sound of the piano picks up the acoustics of the room that it
is played and recorded in.

Then, if you play the recording in another room the listening room, you
don't necessarily want to add the maximal effects of the acoustics of that
second room.

>> -That narrowness is both horizontal and vertical.

>> In fact waveguides can and are construced with dispersion patterns that
>> vary
> strongly between horizontal and vertical. The transitions can be made
> sharp
> or gentle.

> Sure. A lot can be done with physics and wave-guides.

Right, a lot more flexibility than is possible with a direct radiator on a
baffle. This is not to say that the benefits of waveguides have to be lost
on direct radiators.

> But the point is to dissipate energy to reflect the original sound.

Well if dissipation of energy gives you a tummy ache, forget about direct
radiators with 1% or less efficiency compared to up to 20% efficiency or
more with waveguides and compression drivers.

> Horns, by their
> nature (and the use of waveguides) have a narrow 'sweet spot', as you
> allude to above.

Never said any such thing. I said and you seemed to agree at the time that
waveguides can be designed to have wide or narrow dispersion.

I merely said that narrow dispersion can have its moments.

>This makes them more efficient, but less capable of
> reproducing natural sound as it was originally made.

Again, we don't want to put the sound of a musical instrument through the
same room twice. We hear it live after its been put through the room only
once, right?

> One can walk
> nearly 270 degrees around a piano without substantially changing the
> sound as heard.

Not with the top up. Not if you go underneath the piano, which the floor
does, and reflects at some listeners.

>Try that with a horn.

You seem to be confused about the difference between producing music and
reproducing music.

>Even the best dome tweeters don't
> quite make 180 degrees, so don't get me wrong on this. But horns are
> much more severely compromised than domes in this way.

Not at all. Lots of very interesting and useful things are done with
tweeters with waveguides.

>>> -They rely on reflected sound to produce music.

>> Letsee, just about every direct radiator is mounted on a baffle that is a
> pretty good reflector of sound.

> Sure, again. But at the same time a direct radiator also provides
> DIRECT sound. Not nearly-only reflected sound.

You've missed the point. A waveguide can produce a spherical wave at its
mouth, just like a dome tweeter can produce a similar wavefront at a similar
distance. I don't care how the wave is made, I care about what it does in
the room.

>>> that is, the path from
>> the transducer to the ear is neither primary nor direct.

>> Which is a meaningless criteria.

> To whom?

See my last comment. Audio is about sound patterns in a listeners ears. How
those patterns came to be is not a limiting factor.

>> >Then, there is physics involved. If sound is all about moving air, bass
>> notes require moving lots of air relatively slowly, and treble notes
>> require moving much less air but much more quickly.

>>Nonsense - the speed of sound is about the same at all audible
> frequencies.

> In fact radiating sound generally involves no discernable motion of air.
> Otherwise, you'd feel a breeze!

> Yeah. I can blow out a candle at about a foot with my woofers using a
> 20hz tone.

But not over just about all of the audio band.

> And the 3/4" dome tweeter will sure flutter a flame at a
> couple of inches.

Must be a weird crossover.

> Keep in mind that a well-designed, truly full-range
> speaker *system* is capable of causing discernable physical vibrations
> if called upon to do so.

So what?

You really know nothing about acoustics, do you?

When waves move over the surface of pond with the wind, does the water move
across the pond as fast as the wind?

No! The particles in the waves move up and down. The only reason why waves
move up and down the beach is because the beach is sloped and the
up-and-down motion is mechanically transformed into in-and-out motion.


> Visceral reactions, so to speak. So a 15 pound
> (or so) speaker with about a 10 pound magnet pushing only a few ounces
> of voice-coil and cone material had better be able to move a LOT of air
> to create that sort of effect.

You're looking at isolated conditions, not the air in most of the room. It
doesn't move. It just changes pressure.

>>>The physical
>> limitations on a horn greatly exaggerate the limitations of the actual
>> transducer to do both... a full-range horn is an oxymoron in any
>> meaningful way.

>> Full-range direct radiators that actually perform are very rare, as
> well. In
> fact its easier to build an highly effective 2-way system that
> incorporates
> a horn than with direct radiators. However both are easily and
> frequently
> accomplished quite sucessfuly.

> Define "effective".

Works good with reasonable costs.

> Sure, full-range single direct radiators are quite
> rare. I would state that they likely do not exist if a really
> challenging source is used... I use the Saint-Saens Organ Symphony as
> my test-piece, as noted above. And if efficiency is your measure of
> 'effective', sure a horn will get down to that lower range needing less
> power than a direct radiator. And as based on human perception much
> below 500hz is non-directional anyway, that may be moot. But unless
> that mass of air is moved, most horns are incapable of the required
> visceral effect.

You really need to study up on acoustics and how sound waves act in free
air.

>> Just yesterday, I experienced a set of OEM Altec PA speakers with a
>> three-section horn woofer and two 8" standard cone-type tweeters. If
>> the idea is to project band sound to the 40th row, upper balcony, these
>> are your beasts.... these and the power to drive them. Not
>> high-fidelity in your living room.

> SR and Hifi are different beasts, which is not to say that a SR system
> can't
> provide a satisfying sound with good fidelity.

> Here's Altec Lansing's web site.
>
>
> http://www.alteclansing.com/
>
>
>>From it you can readily discern that Altec Lansing does not have any
> current
> production of speakers for SR. Therefore this comment must relate to
> some
> out-of-date product that should never be mentioned in a contemporary
> discussion of the capabilities of speakers that incorporate waveguide
> or
> so-called horn speakers.

> Yikes.... has physics changed that much in 20 years? Have the equations
> altered?

No, but our ability to exploit the laws of physics continues to change.

> You will note that I do not call horns "BAD". I do call them pretty
> severe compromises to achieve a very specific set of goals. To me,
> those goals have dubious value, for several reasons. First and
> foremost, I have -always- had enough power to drive conventional
> speakers at substantial, realistic levels and without clipping. Both
> tube and SS. Second, I have never been fascinated with
> quality-by-measurement, preferring to let my ears drive my choices. It
> may just be that I have hamburger taste in audio, but others seem to
> think that my various systems are pretty stunning as a whole. But that
> I like them is enough.

> So, ask YOURSELF the question: If cost is no object, and your goal is
> to reproduce all music at realistic levels in the typical residential
> setting... not some tweaked-to-a-fare-thee-well listening room focused
> on one single chair... what would be your choice of speakers? How would
> you drive them, and what would be your test sources?

If I had to do it all over again, I'd probably switch to speakers that use
waveguides over the upper frequency range to contend the needs of my
listening room. The rest is pretty much immaterial on the grounds that amps
and digital players are pretty much generic these days.

> Since I asked the question, I will state what I have for my primary
> system (the one that gets used every day by me and by my wife):

> AR3a speakers, cleaned and tweaked crossovers/pots bypassed.
> Dynaco 416 power-amp,
> Dynaco PAT-5biFet pre-amp
> Revox CD player
> Revox TT
> Any-of-several tuners.
> Standard livingroom, about 14 x 16 x 9 feet.

Well I once owned a pair of AR-3as, but they became so obsolete that they
are long gone.

I own two Dyna ST400s, one that has doubled output transistor capacity, like
a 416. Out of service and in storage because I have more appropriate amps.

I own a PAT-5 that also sits on a shelf in a storeroom because its largely
obsolete.

Guess what! It's 2006 not 1976!

[Arny Krueger]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> <<snip>>
>> >
>> > SR and Hifi are different beasts, which is not to say that a SR system
>> > can't
>> > provide a satisfying sound with good fidelity.
>> >
>>
>> Say it isn't so. An amp that's excellent for PA isn't so good for the
>> house??

> I rather suspect he mainly meant the speakers actually.

I was actually speaking very generally - about the respective technologies.
Add recording for a third semi-overlapping regime.

> In any event, a typical SR amplifier in the kilowatt output region does
> not
> tyically measure as well as a high end audiophile product.

Brat is probably taking a potshot at the fact that I use a USA-400 in my
home stereo system. It's just another good convection-cooled 120 wpc SS amp
in my book.

>> > Here's Altec Lansing's web site.
>> >
>> > http://www.alteclansing.com/
>> >
>> > From it you can readily discern that Altec Lansing does not have any
>> > current
>> > production of speakers for SR. Therefore this comment must relate to
>> > some
>> > out-of-date product that should never be mentioned in a contemporary
>> > discussion of the capabilities of speakers that incorporate waveguide
>> > or
>> > so-called horn speakers.
>>
>> No, Arny, the classic Altec Lansing gear sets a benchmark for all
>> time.

> You ARE joking right ? Those horn loaded cabs wers simply designed to be
> loud with
> the low power valve amps of the day.

The A7 was a joke on just about every day of its life, new or old. In
contrast the A4 was a genuine classic.

>> It may well be improved on,

> Left standing in the dirt actually !

Agreed.

>> but Altec Lansing and JBL WERE the
>> quality driver manufacturers in the United States, a country that
>> actually did manufacture stuff, for decades. There is still a LOT of
>> Altec stuff in use, because it was so well built.

> None that I know of for sure. Cinemas re-equipped for Dolby and THX will
> have long
> junked all that stuff.

Agreed. I haven't seen classic Altec and JBL speakers in cinemas for at
least 20 years.

>> The Japanese pay very good money for it.

> Good luck to them. The Japanese seem to like antiques.

Actually, they worship them.

>> New PA and MI gear often is designed to mimic,
>> interface with, or fit in the void left by it.

> NO ! Modern stuff outranks a VOT any day.

Totally agreed. Brat's a tubie, but now he wants us to think that hes' a
conoisseur of SS amps with his crack about my USA 400.

[GregS]

In article . com>, " > wrote:
>Arny:
>
>Please note the interpolations. Google does not conveniently insert the
>carats.
>
>> They have followed more-or-less down the same path ever since...
>> projecting sound at maximum perceived volume over the maximum
>> _DISTANCE_ for at the least amount of power. All sorts of improvements
>> have been made over the years, but the basic concept and inherent
>> limitations cannot be overcome. Put very simply, they are:
>> -horns are very axial... that is they have a very narrow sound stage.
>
>
>In fact, waveguides can be built with a wide variety of dispersion
>patterns.
>If one could pick an ideal dispersion pattern, one would probably pick
>a
>narrower one in most cases.
>

The throat should be near a circle or square. Elongating any side
tends to create problems trying to keep response flat.

greg

>Why? The sound as projected by a Piano is not narrow. From a clarinet,
>perhaps. Speakers should be capable of projecting both with reasonable
>accuracy, and not one at the expense of the other.
>
>> -That narrowness is both horizontal and vertical.
>
>In fact waveguides can and are construced with dispersion patterns that
>vary
>strongly between horizontal and vertical. The transitions can be made
>sharp
>or gentle.
>
>Sure. A lot can be done with physics and wave-guides. But the point is
>to dissipate energy to reflect the original sound. Horns, by their
>nature (and the use of waveguides) have a narrow 'sweet spot', as you
>allude to above. This makes them more efficient, but less capable of
>reproducing natural sound as it was originally made. One can walk
>nearly 270 degrees around a piano without substantially changing the
>sound as heard. Try that with a horn. Even the best dome tweeters don't
>quite make 180 degrees, so don't get me wrong on this. But horns are
>much more severely compromised than domes in this way.
>
>> -They rely on reflected sound to produce music.
>
>Letsee, just about every direct radiator is mounted on a baffle that is
>a
>pretty good reflector of sound.
>
>Sure, again. But at the same time a direct radiator also provides
>DIRECT sound. Not nearly-only reflected sound.
>
>> that is, the path from
>> the transducer to the ear is neither primary nor direct.
>
>Which is a meaningless criteria.
>
>To whom?
>
>> Then, there is physics involved. If sound is all about moving air, bass
>> notes require moving lots of air relatively slowly, and treble notes
>> require moving much less air but much more quickly.
>
>Nonsense - the speed of sound is about the same at all audible
>frequencies.
>In fact radiating sound generally involves no discernable motion of
>air.
>Otherwise, you'd feel a breeze!
>
>Yeah. I can blow out a candle at about a foot with my woofers using a
>20hz tone. And the 3/4" dome tweeter will sure flutter a flame at a
>couple of inches. Keep in mind that a well-designed, truly full-range
>speaker *system* is capable of causing discernable physical vibrations
>if called upon to do so. Visceral reactions, so to speak. So a 15 pound
>(or so) speaker with about a 10 pound magnet pushing only a few ounces
>of voice-coil and cone material had better be able to move a LOT of air
>to create that sort of effect.
>
>>The physical
>> limitations on a horn greatly exaggerate the limitations of the actual
>> transducer to do both... a full-range horn is an oxymoron in any
>> meaningful way.
>
>
>Full-range direct radiators that actually perform are very rare, as
>well. In
>fact its easier to build an highly effective 2-way system that
>incorporates
>a horn than with direct radiators. However both are easily and
>frequently
>accomplished quite sucessfuly.
>
>Define "effective". Sure, full-range single direct radiators are quite
>rare. I would state that they likely do not exist if a really
>challenging source is used... I use the Saint-Saens Organ Symphony as
>my test-piece, as noted above. And if efficiency is your measure of
>'effective', sure a horn will get down to that lower range needing less
>power than a direct radiator. And as based on human perception much
>below 500hz is non-directional anyway, that may be moot. But unless
>that mass of air is moved, most horns are incapable of the required
>visceral effect.
>
>> Just yesterday, I experienced a set of OEM Altec PA speakers with a
>> three-section horn woofer and two 8" standard cone-type tweeters. If
>> the idea is to project band sound to the 40th row, upper balcony, these
>> are your beasts.... these and the power to drive them. Not
>> high-fidelity in your living room.
>
>
>SR and Hifi are different beasts, which is not to say that a SR system
>can't
>provide a satisfying sound with good fidelity.
>
>Here's Altec Lansing's web site.
>
>
>http://www.alteclansing.com/
>
>
>>From it you can readily discern that Altec Lansing does not have any
>current
>production of speakers for SR. Therefore this comment must relate to
>some
>out-of-date product that should never be mentioned in a contemporary
>discussion of the capabilities of speakers that incorporate waveguide
>or
>so-called horn speakers.
>
>Yikes.... has physics changed that much in 20 years? Have the equations
>altered?
>
>You will note that I do not call horns "BAD". I do call them pretty
>severe compromises to achieve a very specific set of goals. To me,
>those goals have dubious value, for several reasons. First and
>foremost, I have -always- had enough power to drive conventional
>speakers at substantial, realistic levels and without clipping. Both
>tube and SS. Second, I have never been fascinated with
>quality-by-measurement, preferring to let my ears drive my choices. It
>may just be that I have hamburger taste in audio, but others seem to
>think that my various systems are pretty stunning as a whole. But that
>I like them is enough.
>
>So, ask YOURSELF the question: If cost is no object, and your goal is
>to reproduce all music at realistic levels in the typical residential
>setting... not some tweaked-to-a-fare-thee-well listening room focused
>on one single chair... what would be your choice of speakers? How would
>you drive them, and what would be your test sources?
>
>Since I asked the question, I will state what I have for my primary
>system (the one that gets used every day by me and by my wife):
>
>AR3a speakers, cleaned and tweaked crossovers/pots bypassed.
>Dynaco 416 power-amp,
>Dynaco PAT-5biFet pre-amp
>Revox CD player
>Revox TT
>Any-of-several tuners.
>Standard livingroom, about 14 x 16 x 9 feet.
>
>Family Room System:
>Also AR3a speakers, but 100% OEM (the pots are good)
>Scott LK-150 amp
>Dynaco PAS-pre-amp, WIMA caps, Sylvania mil.spec. 5751 tubes (blows
>smooth-plate Teles (which I have) out of the water).
>Dynaco FM-3
>Yamaha CD Changer
>
>The speakers will alternate with a pair of ARM5s or M6s, the tuner &
>pre-amp will alternate with a Revox A720 tuner/preamp, or a Scott tuner
>and Scott pre-amp.
>
>Lots-O-Other stuff floating around too.... depending on what's passing
>through.
>
>No horns involved.
>
>Lots of power, lots of headroom.
>
>My test sources are the Saint-Saens as noted, Kiri Te Kanawa singing
>Mozart's Exulatate Jubilata, Vivaldi's Gloria, and a solo harpsichord,
>usually Bach. After that group, Bluegrass, Folk, solo guitar (Leo Kotke
>or John Fahey) and standard R&R are no challenge.
>
>Peter Wieck
>Wyncote, PA
>

[GregS]

In article >, (GregS) wrote:
>In article . com>,
> " > wrote:
>>Arny:
>>
>>Please note the interpolations. Google does not conveniently insert the
>>carats.
>>
>>> They have followed more-or-less down the same path ever since...
>>> projecting sound at maximum perceived volume over the maximum
>>> _DISTANCE_ for at the least amount of power. All sorts of improvements
>>> have been made over the years, but the basic concept and inherent
>>> limitations cannot be overcome. Put very simply, they are:
>>> -horns are very axial... that is they have a very narrow sound stage.
>>
>>
>>In fact, waveguides can be built with a wide variety of dispersion
>>patterns.
>>If one could pick an ideal dispersion pattern, one would probably pick
>>a
>>narrower one in most cases.
>>
>

>The throat should be near a circle or square. Elongating any side
>tends to create problems trying to keep response flat.
>
>greg
>

Make that MOUTH, not throat. I always get those confused.

>>Why? The sound as projected by a Piano is not narrow. From a clarinet,
>>perhaps. Speakers should be capable of projecting both with reasonable
>>accuracy, and not one at the expense of the other.
>>
>>> -That narrowness is both horizontal and vertical.
>>
>>In fact waveguides can and are construced with dispersion patterns that
>>vary
>>strongly between horizontal and vertical. The transitions can be made
>>sharp
>>or gentle.
>>
>>Sure. A lot can be done with physics and wave-guides. But the point is
>>to dissipate energy to reflect the original sound. Horns, by their
>>nature (and the use of waveguides) have a narrow 'sweet spot', as you
>>allude to above. This makes them more efficient, but less capable of
>>reproducing natural sound as it was originally made. One can walk
>>nearly 270 degrees around a piano without substantially changing the
>>sound as heard. Try that with a horn. Even the best dome tweeters don't
>>quite make 180 degrees, so don't get me wrong on this. But horns are
>>much more severely compromised than domes in this way.
>>
>>> -They rely on reflected sound to produce music.
>>
>>Letsee, just about every direct radiator is mounted on a baffle that is
>>a
>>pretty good reflector of sound.
>>
>>Sure, again. But at the same time a direct radiator also provides
>>DIRECT sound. Not nearly-only reflected sound.
>>
>>> that is, the path from
>>> the transducer to the ear is neither primary nor direct.
>>
>>Which is a meaningless criteria.
>>
>>To whom?
>>
>>> Then, there is physics involved. If sound is all about moving air, bass
>>> notes require moving lots of air relatively slowly, and treble notes
>>> require moving much less air but much more quickly.
>>
>>Nonsense - the speed of sound is about the same at all audible
>>frequencies.
>>In fact radiating sound generally involves no discernable motion of
>>air.
>>Otherwise, you'd feel a breeze!
>>
>>Yeah. I can blow out a candle at about a foot with my woofers using a
>>20hz tone. And the 3/4" dome tweeter will sure flutter a flame at a
>>couple of inches. Keep in mind that a well-designed, truly full-range
>>speaker *system* is capable of causing discernable physical vibrations
>>if called upon to do so. Visceral reactions, so to speak. So a 15 pound
>>(or so) speaker with about a 10 pound magnet pushing only a few ounces
>>of voice-coil and cone material had better be able to move a LOT of air
>>to create that sort of effect.
>>
>>>The physical
>>> limitations on a horn greatly exaggerate the limitations of the actual
>>> transducer to do both... a full-range horn is an oxymoron in any
>>> meaningful way.
>>
>>
>>Full-range direct radiators that actually perform are very rare, as
>>well. In
>>fact its easier to build an highly effective 2-way system that
>>incorporates
>>a horn than with direct radiators. However both are easily and
>>frequently
>>accomplished quite sucessfuly.
>>
>>Define "effective". Sure, full-range single direct radiators are quite
>>rare. I would state that they likely do not exist if a really
>>challenging source is used... I use the Saint-Saens Organ Symphony as
>>my test-piece, as noted above. And if efficiency is your measure of
>>'effective', sure a horn will get down to that lower range needing less
>>power than a direct radiator. And as based on human perception much
>>below 500hz is non-directional anyway, that may be moot. But unless
>>that mass of air is moved, most horns are incapable of the required
>>visceral effect.
>>
>>> Just yesterday, I experienced a set of OEM Altec PA speakers with a
>>> three-section horn woofer and two 8" standard cone-type tweeters. If
>>> the idea is to project band sound to the 40th row, upper balcony, these
>>> are your beasts.... these and the power to drive them. Not
>>> high-fidelity in your living room.
>>
>>
>>SR and Hifi are different beasts, which is not to say that a SR system
>>can't
>>provide a satisfying sound with good fidelity.
>>
>>Here's Altec Lansing's web site.
>>
>>
>>http://www.alteclansing.com/
>>
>>
>>>From it you can readily discern that Altec Lansing does not have any
>>current
>>production of speakers for SR. Therefore this comment must relate to
>>some
>>out-of-date product that should never be mentioned in a contemporary
>>discussion of the capabilities of speakers that incorporate waveguide
>>or
>>so-called horn speakers.
>>
>>Yikes.... has physics changed that much in 20 years? Have the equations
>>altered?
>>
>>You will note that I do not call horns "BAD". I do call them pretty
>>severe compromises to achieve a very specific set of goals. To me,
>>those goals have dubious value, for several reasons. First and
>>foremost, I have -always- had enough power to drive conventional
>>speakers at substantial, realistic levels and without clipping. Both
>>tube and SS. Second, I have never been fascinated with
>>quality-by-measurement, preferring to let my ears drive my choices. It
>>may just be that I have hamburger taste in audio, but others seem to
>>think that my various systems are pretty stunning as a whole. But that
>>I like them is enough.
>>
>>So, ask YOURSELF the question: If cost is no object, and your goal is
>>to reproduce all music at realistic levels in the typical residential
>>setting... not some tweaked-to-a-fare-thee-well listening room focused
>>on one single chair... what would be your choice of speakers? How would
>>you drive them, and what would be your test sources?
>>
>>Since I asked the question, I will state what I have for my primary
>>system (the one that gets used every day by me and by my wife):
>>
>>AR3a speakers, cleaned and tweaked crossovers/pots bypassed.
>>Dynaco 416 power-amp,
>>Dynaco PAT-5biFet pre-amp
>>Revox CD player
>>Revox TT
>>Any-of-several tuners.
>>Standard livingroom, about 14 x 16 x 9 feet.
>>
>>Family Room System:
>>Also AR3a speakers, but 100% OEM (the pots are good)
>>Scott LK-150 amp
>>Dynaco PAS-pre-amp, WIMA caps, Sylvania mil.spec. 5751 tubes (blows
>>smooth-plate Teles (which I have) out of the water).
>>Dynaco FM-3
>>Yamaha CD Changer
>>
>>The speakers will alternate with a pair of ARM5s or M6s, the tuner &
>>pre-amp will alternate with a Revox A720 tuner/preamp, or a Scott tuner
>>and Scott pre-amp.
>>
>>Lots-O-Other stuff floating around too.... depending on what's passing
>>through.
>>
>>No horns involved.
>>
>>Lots of power, lots of headroom.
>>
>>My test sources are the Saint-Saens as noted, Kiri Te Kanawa singing
>>Mozart's Exulatate Jubilata, Vivaldi's Gloria, and a solo harpsichord,
>>usually Bach. After that group, Bluegrass, Folk, solo guitar (Leo Kotke
>>or John Fahey) and standard R&R are no challenge.
>>
>>Peter Wieck
>>Wyncote, PA
>>

[Pooh Bear]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> Brat's a tubie, but now he wants us to think that hes' a
> conoisseur of SS amps with his crack about my USA 400.

It is a perplexing choice of amplifier IMHO !

Why not check out one of those Behringer A500s ?

Graham

[Pooh Bear]

GregS wrote:

> In article >, (GregS) wrote:
> >In article . com>,
> > " > wrote:
>
> >>In fact, waveguides can be built with a wide variety of dispersion
> >>patterns.
> >>If one could pick an ideal dispersion pattern, one would probably pick
> >>a narrower one in most cases.
>
> >The throat should be near a circle or square. Elongating any side
> >tends to create problems trying to keep response flat.
> >
> >greg
>
>
> Make that MOUTH, not throat. I always get those confused.

Do you never trim a post ?

Graham

[dave weil]

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 10:40:06 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>Like Faukner ever knew the true meaning of life for all of us to emulate.

It DOES help to know how to spell his name...

[RapidRonnie]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "Bret Ludwig" > wrote

<<snip>>

> >
> > Say it isn't so. An amp that's excellent for PA isn't so good for the


Disinclination to address noted.

<<snip>>

> >It may well be improved on, but Altec Lansing and JBL WERE the
> > quality driver manufacturers in the United States, a country that
> > actually did manufacture stuff, for decades. There is still a LOT of
> > Altec stuff in use, because it was so well built.
>
> AFAIK there's no classic JBL or Altec stuff much of anyplace but some
> luddite's places. JBL still makes good stuff, but none of the stuff that the
> Luddites prize is still in production. JBL and technology moved on.
>
> > The Japanese pay very good money for it.
>
> Some Japanese, not all of them.
>
> They also pay very good money for bear's bladder sex cures. Makes who with
> a brain want to run right out and get of it that they can?


No, the Chinese do that. Actually, only those from certain provinces.

>
> > New PA and MI gear often is designed to mimic,
> > interface with, or fit in the void left by it.
>
> Nonsense. Current SOTA SR and MI gear has moved on.

You are not running sound for anyone in my neck of the woods, Arny!

[RapidRonnie]

Pooh Bear wrote:
> Bret Ludwig wrote:
>
> > Arny Krueger wrote:

<<snip>>

> > No, Arny, the classic Altec Lansing gear sets a benchmark for all
> > time.
>
> You ARE joking right ? Those horn loaded cabs wers simply designed to be loud with
> the low power valve amps of the day.
>

Probably meant the drivers. No one even the SET crowd listens to stock
VOTs!
Some of the old Altec drivers are still very good by any standard.
Ditto JBL.
>
> > but Altec Lansing and JBL WERE the
> > quality driver manufacturers in the United States, a country that
> > actually did manufacture stuff, for decades. There is still a LOT of
> > Altec stuff in use, because it was so well built.
>
> None that I know of for sure. Cinemas re-equipped for Dolby and THX will have long
> junked all that stuff.


Cinemas are not the only users of this stuff.

> > The Japanese pay very
> > good money for it.
>
> Good luck to them. The Japanese seem to like antiques.
>
> > New PA and MI gear often is designed to mimic,
> > interface with, or fit in the void left by it.
>
> NO ! Modern stuff outranks a VOT any day.
Which VOT? Modified A4's are still considered pretty good in rooms of
a certain size. And the Duplex 604 is also still a prized driver-now in
reproduction as the Iconic 704.

http://www.iconicspkrs.com/compoundspeakers.html

The 15" driver using the 604's bass motor components is also a very
highly sought part, both for studio monitoring and by steel guitar
players.

[GregS]

In article >, Pooh Bear > wrote:
>
>
>GregS wrote:
>
>> In article >,
> (GregS) wrote:
>> >In article . com>,
>> > " > wrote:
>>
>> >>In fact, waveguides can be built with a wide variety of dispersion
>> >>patterns.
>> >>If one could pick an ideal dispersion pattern, one would probably pick
>> >>a narrower one in most cases.
>>
>> >The throat should be near a circle or square. Elongating any side
>> >tends to create problems trying to keep response flat.
>> >
>> >greg
>>
>>
>> Make that MOUTH, not throat. I always get those confused.
>
>Do you never trim a post ?
>
>Graham
>





































































Sometimes.

greg

[[email protected]]

OK... I will try again, and in no particular order.

No, "moving air" is not taking a chunk of air and moving it across the
room. Using your analogy of ripples on a pond, a 7.5 Richter underwater
earthquake can cause a tsunami. Not that the water at the location of
the quake is the water that floods 4 miles inland. But the energy
applied at one end does reach the other end, the medium being the
water. Air is much the same way. The energy applied in the concert hall
wants to be delivered to the ear in the listening room, suitably scaled
for the desire of the listener. AND------- AND----- the listener should
have several degrees-of-freedom as to position when listening.

Yes, I do want to "hear the room". Otherwise, fer crissakes, we may as
well record all our music in the high-school gym using multiple
point-source microphones and electronics to remove the undesireable
artifacts. So, I want my speakers (and electronics) to be capable of
reproducing the sound appropriately, and, if anything overcome as much
as possible the inherent limitations of putting Carnegie Hall inside a
Wyncote living room... and a smallish one at that.

I can blow out a candle at 20Hz with the woofer. I can make interesting
patterns in that candle at 15kHz with the tweeter... I KNOW it is a
wave-front causing both. But the amplitude of the wave is what is at
issue. Isolated Conditions: Guy, when the bombard pipes kick in, there
is very little 'isolated' in my listening room. And that capacity of my
speakers is exactly as important and valuable as its ability to reach
up to the 6" pipe as well. And _all_ the air in the _entire_ room is
affected. That the higher notes are more directional is a
psycho-acoustic phenomenon, but not the physics involved. Visceral
effects are as much part of the music as anything else, and had better
be there if a system is to be credited as a valid *reproducer*.

A microphone, however designed has as its basic purpose to take the air
that hits it and translate that impact into electrical impulses... And
at the other end of many steps, the speakers are to kick out what the
microphone heard, warts and all. Any artifacts added or removed during
the recording and reproduction process are actually reductions in the
total fidelity of what the microphone heard. Back in the day, when
Horns were the ONLY sort of speaker, they worked both ways. Recording
was mechanical, as was reproduction. Horns concentrated the energy into
the recording stylus, and amplified it on the playback. Fidelity was a
matter of degree... We are better than that now...

As to 2006 vs. the 70s, of course it is. And look what it has brought
us. The typical listener today believes that what comes out of his/her
computer speakers is 'high-fidelity' because the speakers say "Bose" or
some such on them. The actually believe that a Bose wave radio is
capable of 'full fidelity sound reproduction'. So damned-near anything
will sound good with that as a measure. We have trained almost an
entire generation to "Television" sound... it ain't necessarily so. As
to electronic amplification, not much has changed in the last 60 years
for tubes and 35 years for solid-state excepting around the edges. So,
a solid, reliable, 'flat' amplifier made in 1963, or 1971, or 2006
remains a solid, reliable, 'flat' amplifier today. Speakers will use
better materials (sometimes) and tighter tolerances (sometimes), but
their essential function is unchanged. That the better materials and
tighter tolerances make them more efficient is a very good thing. But
we should never be fooled into believing that efficiency is the
sole-and-only driving force in speaker design. What should be the
driving force, then, now and into the future is a given speakers's
ability to RE-produce sound as closely as possible to the
live-and-on-site experience.

Oh, Arny... you haven't revealed what you use as a test-source for
speakers. That would be fascinating to know.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Stewart Pinkerton]

On 12 Jan 2006 11:02:42 -0800, " > wrote:

>As to 2006 vs. the 70s, of course it is. And look what it has brought
>us. The typical listener today believes that what comes out of his/her
>computer speakers is 'high-fidelity' because the speakers say "Bose" or
>some such on them. The actually believe that a Bose wave radio is
>capable of 'full fidelity sound reproduction'. So damned-near anything
>will sound good with that as a measure. We have trained almost an
>entire generation to "Television" sound... it ain't necessarily so.

The previous generation was trained to open-back tubed radios with
nothing below 100Hz or so, receiving 5kHz bandwidth AM transmissions.
Did you have a point to make?

> As
>to electronic amplification, not much has changed in the last 60 years
>for tubes and 35 years for solid-state excepting around the edges. So,
>a solid, reliable, 'flat' amplifier made in 1963, or 1971, or 2006
>remains a solid, reliable, 'flat' amplifier today.

True, and pretty much a done deal above the most basic cost-stripped
units.

> Speakers will use
>better materials (sometimes) and tighter tolerances (sometimes), but
>their essential function is unchanged. That the better materials and
>tighter tolerances make them more efficient is a very good thing.

Actually, it doesn't necessarily make them more efficient, but it
makes them a heck of a lot more accurate!

> But
>we should never be fooled into believing that efficiency is the
>sole-and-only driving force in speaker design.

Since when did *anyone* believe that?

> What should be the
>driving force, then, now and into the future is a given speakers's
>ability to RE-produce sound as closely as possible to the
>live-and-on-site experience.

Since when did anyone argue against that?
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

[Pooh Bear]

" wrote:

> not much has changed in the last.... 35 years for solid-state excepting
> around the edges.

You are JOKING !

You can't understand much about modern solid state design.

Even the true complementary pair was essentially unknown 35 yrs ago. And
that's for starters !

> Speakers will use
> better materials (sometimes) and tighter tolerances (sometimes), but
> their essential function is unchanged. That the better materials and
> tighter tolerances make them more efficient is a very good thing.

What about the use of modern materials to reduce cone break up ?

Not to mention in all aspects of engineering - the use of CAD / somputer
modelling to optimise designs.

Your knowledge is very weak.

Graham

[[email protected]]

>Since when did anyone argue against that?

There is a context going on here, Stewart. More-or-less that horns
(may) have inherent problems due to their nature and design. The
question under discussion is how much/well can these (potential)
problems be overcome with modern means-and-methods. And whether the
results so-achieved are worth the effort as compared to other options.

And, from what I understand, one of the major virtues of horns is their
relative efficiency as compared to (more) conventional designs. So,
that is where efficiency became a point of discussion, along with
accuracy.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[[email protected]]

>What about the use of modern materials to reduce cone break up ?

>Not to mention in all aspects of engineering - the use of CAD / somputer
>modelling to optimise designs


Yikes.... I have a 1969-executed-in-1971 design sitting on my bench
with "true complementary pair" outputs. That it also used interstage
transformers and other Jurassic-vintage throwbacks is not relevant to
your statement.

Cones that break up under any amplifier power below clipping are poorly
designed whether in 1951 or 2021. Why even suggest otherwise?

CAD is a method, not a design. Computers model where previously actual
experiments had to take place. Admittedly many blind alleys are avoided
this way, but perhaps/maybe a risky-but-successful design as well.
However, I do know -one- speaker designer who believes that computer
modeling allows him to go down some experimental paths that he could
not have afforded otherwise... so it is a mixed blessing that I agree
has done more good than harm overall. That it is my opinion that he has
a tin ear and his products are useful only for announcing train
arrivals at the local commuter rail station is not relevant either.

Now, cutting directly to the chase... if an amplifier will produce a
flat response at say.... 60 watts/rms from say.... 5hz - 50khz, at less
than say.... 0.25THD, with a S/N ratio of 90dB-or-better, it is a
pretty good design... maybe?? Even if it uses a steam engine and burns
coal? This was done in 1969.... as a mass-produced product, yet.
Improvements on that design would be "around the edges" perhaps?
Graham, with all due respect, you need to read for content and separate
your emotions from the discussion at hand.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Pooh Bear]

" wrote:

> >What about the use of modern materials to reduce cone break up ?
>
> >Not to mention in all aspects of engineering - the use of CAD / somputer
> >modelling to optimise designs
>
> Yikes.... I have a 1969-executed-in-1971 design sitting on my bench
> with "true complementary pair" outputs.

That would be a very early example indeed. Sadly not of much help given the
following info.

> That it also used interstage
> transformers and other Jurassic-vintage throwbacks is not relevant to
> your statement.

Actually it is. It shows that such Jurassic designs were still being
implemented in 1971 ! Kinda blows that 'no advances in the last 35 yrs' claim
out the window nicely !

> Cones that break up under any amplifier power below clipping are poorly
> designed whether in 1951 or 2021. Why even suggest otherwise?

Cones break up *way* below clipping power. Just look at typical HF
performance.

> CAD is a method, not a design. Computers model where previously actual
> experiments had to take place.

And so fast that many possible iterations can be tried where previously it
was totally impractical. It *has* revolutionised design in every single
branch of engineering.

> Admittedly many blind alleys are avoided
> this way, but perhaps/maybe a risky-but-successful design as well.
> However, I do know -one- speaker designer who believes that computer
> modeling allows him to go down some experimental paths that he could
> not have afforded otherwise... so it is a mixed blessing that I agree
> has done more good than harm overall.

I'm pleased to see you recognise that. I fail to see how it's 'mixed
blessings' though.

> That it is my opinion that he has
> a tin ear and his products are useful only for announcing train
> arrivals at the local commuter rail station is not relevant either.
>
> Now, cutting directly to the chase... if an amplifier will produce a
> flat response at say.... 60 watts/rms from say.... 5hz - 50khz, at less
> than say.... 0.25THD, with a S/N ratio of 90dB-or-better, it is a
> pretty good design... maybe??

0.25% THD hardly qualifies as a pretty good design these days. It's hard for
a competent designer to exceed 0.025% today even when cutting costs.

> Even if it uses a steam engine and burns
> coal? This was done in 1969.... as a mass-produced product, yet.
> Improvements on that design would be "around the edges" perhaps?
> Graham, with all due respect, you need to read for content and separate
> your emotions from the discussion at hand.

Emotions don't come into the above. Merely modern design engineering
principles.

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> Brat's a tubie, but now he wants us to think that hes' a
>> conoisseur of SS amps with his crack about my USA 400.

> It is a perplexing choice of amplifier IMHO !

Why?

> Why not check out one of those Behringer A500s ?

I'm probably going to buy some A500s for church.

[Arny Krueger]

> wrote in message
oups.com...


> Yes, I do want to "hear the room". Otherwise, fer crissakes, we may as
> well record all our music in the high-school gym using multiple
> point-source microphones and electronics to remove the undesireable
> artifacts.

You're again confusing hearing the listening room with hearing the room
where the recording took place.

Until you figure out the difference, your posts are going to be confused
messes.

[Pooh Bear]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >> Brat's a tubie, but now he wants us to think that hes' a
> >> conoisseur of SS amps with his crack about my USA 400.
>
> > It is a perplexing choice of amplifier IMHO !
>
> Why?

I have in the past rated that style of QSC design as being somewhat
'agricultural' ! I could elaborate at considerable length. You might not
like it though.

> > Why not check out one of those Behringer A500s ?
>
> I'm probably going to buy some A500s for church.

Take one home and try it there as well then.

Graham

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>
> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> ...
>>
choice of amplifier IMHO !
>
> Why?
>
>> Why not check out one of those Behringer A500s ?
>
> I'm probably going to buy some A500s for church.
>
>

yes, the church choir certainly deserves them.



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Arny Krueger]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> " wrote:
>
>> not much has changed in the last.... 35 years for solid-state excepting
>> around the edges.
>
> You are JOKING !
>
> You can't understand much about modern solid state design.
>
> Even the true complementary pair was essentially unknown 35 yrs ago. And
> that's for starters !

35 years ago was 1971, and I had been building and repairing SS amps for
about 8 years at the time.

The true complementary pair was well-known and widely used in 1971. For
example, they were widely used as drivers for quasi-complementary output
stages. Common part numbers were 2N3053 and 2N4037 if memory serves.

There were some issues with the costs of high powered complementary pairs,
but their use was well-known. Bart Locanthi is well-known for his design of
the full complementary "T circuit" which appeared in a JBL power amp in the
mid - 1960s. Please see this 1967 article
http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~mleach/papers/tcir/tcir.pdf My recollection
is that the amp was new on the market at the time this article was
published.


>> Speakers will use
>> better materials (sometimes) and tighter tolerances (sometimes), but
>> their essential function is unchanged. That the better materials and
>> tighter tolerances make them more efficient is a very good thing.

Also better materials for magnets.

> What about the use of modern materials to reduce cone break up ?

Or at least control it.

> Not to mention in all aspects of engineering - the use of CAD / somputer
> modelling to optimise designs.

Agreed. Circuit modeling has greatly assisted the design of low distortion
circuits.

[Arny Krueger]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> " wrote:
>
>> >What about the use of modern materials to reduce cone break up ?
>>
>> >Not to mention in all aspects of engineering - the use of CAD / somputer
>> >modelling to optimise designs
>>
>> Yikes.... I have a 1969-executed-in-1971 design sitting on my bench
>> with "true complementary pair" outputs.
>
> That would be a very early example indeed. Sadly not of much help given
> the
> following info.

>> That it also used interstage
>> transformers and other Jurassic-vintage throwbacks is not relevant to
>> your statement.

> Actually it is. It shows that such Jurassic designs were still being
> implemented in 1971 ! Kinda blows that 'no advances in the last 35 yrs'
> claim
> out the window nicely !

Check this one out:

http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~mleach/papers/tcir/tcir.pdf

>> Cones that break up under any amplifier power below clipping are poorly
>> designed whether in 1951 or 2021. Why even suggest otherwise?
>
> Cones break up *way* below clipping power. Just look at typical HF
> performance.

Cone break up is a linear process. It happens at all power levels.

>> CAD is a method, not a design. Computers model where previously actual
>> experiments had to take place.

> And so fast that many possible iterations can be tried where previously it
> was totally impractical. It *has* revolutionised design in every single
> branch of engineering.

>> Now, cutting directly to the chase... if an amplifier will produce a
>> flat response at say.... 60 watts/rms from say.... 5hz - 50khz, at less
>> than say.... 0.25THD, with a S/N ratio of 90dB-or-better, it is a
>> pretty good design... maybe??

It's pretty dated. Modern PA amps do far better.

> 0.25% THD hardly qualifies as a pretty good design these days. It's hard
> for
> a competent designer to exceed 0.025% today even when cutting costs.

Agreed. Then there is the matter of costs. Amps like the Berhinger A500 at
under $200 provide clean power and tremendous value.

[Arny Krueger]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >
>> >> Brat's a tubie, but now he wants us to think that hes' a
>> >> conoisseur of SS amps with his crack about my USA 400.
>>
>> > It is a perplexing choice of amplifier IMHO !
>>
>> Why?
>
> I have in the past rated that style of QSC design as being somewhat
> 'agricultural' ! I could elaborate at considerable length. You might not
> like it though.

Trouble is, I know how that design does in straight wire bypass tests.

Indeed, how that circuit sounds in a straight wire bypass test has been
posted for all to hear:

http://www.pcabx.com/product/usa-850/index.htm

>> > Why not check out one of those Behringer A500s ?

>> I'm probably going to buy some A500s for church.

> Take one home and try it there as well then.

What sounds better than an amp that is indistinguishable from a straight
wire?

[Pooh Bear]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> >
> > " wrote:
> >
> >> not much has changed in the last.... 35 years for solid-state excepting
> >> around the edges.
> >
> > You are JOKING !
> >
> > You can't understand much about modern solid state design.
> >
> > Even the true complementary pair was essentially unknown 35 yrs ago. And
> > that's for starters !
>
> 35 years ago was 1971, and I had been building and repairing SS amps for
> about 8 years at the time.
>
> The true complementary pair was well-known and widely used in 1971. For
> example, they were widely used as drivers for quasi-complementary output
> stages. Common part numbers were 2N3053 and 2N4037 if memory serves.

As *drivers* !!!!!!!!!!!

Please pay attention Arny !

I said ' complementary output ' - NOT - ' quasi-complementary output' ! There's
a HUGE difference.Not least in the sound.


> There were some issues with the costs of high powered complementary pairs,
> but their use was well-known. Bart Locanthi is well-known for his design of
> the full complementary "T circuit" which appeared in a JBL power amp in the
> mid - 1960s. Please see this 1967 article
> http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~mleach/papers/tcir/tcir.pdf My recollection
> is that the amp was new on the market at the time this article was
> published.

I may get round to reading that since you recommend it.

The simple truth however is that it was device technology advances that made
proper fully-complementary outputs viable only in the mid 70s.


> >> Speakers will use
> >> better materials (sometimes) and tighter tolerances (sometimes), but
> >> their essential function is unchanged. That the better materials and
> >> tighter tolerances make them more efficient is a very good thing.
>
> Also better materials for magnets.
>
> > What about the use of modern materials to reduce cone break up ?
>
> Or at least control it.
>
> > Not to mention in all aspects of engineering - the use of CAD / somputer
> > modelling to optimise designs.
>
> Agreed. Circuit modeling has greatly assisted the design of low distortion
> circuits.

It's actually a fascinating area. As long ago as 1989 I was using Mathcad to
create my own models for amplifier gain/phase/stability calculations. Today's
off the shelf packages make it so much easier but the user may not fully
understand the underlying principles any more though.

Graham

[Pooh Bear]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Brat's a tubie, but now he wants us to think that hes' a
> >> >> conoisseur of SS amps with his crack about my USA 400.
> >>
> >> > It is a perplexing choice of amplifier IMHO !
> >>
> >> Why?
> >
> > I have in the past rated that style of QSC design as being somewhat
> > 'agricultural' ! I could elaborate at considerable length. You might not
> > like it though.
>
> Trouble is, I know how that design does in straight wire bypass tests.

And I know how 'badly' it measures ( for an SS amp ! ). Crossover in
particular is truly horrid.

Not to mention a bag of other issues I have with that style of QSC
architecture.


> Indeed, how that circuit sounds in a straight wire bypass test has been
> posted for all to hear:
>
> http://www.pcabx.com/product/usa-850/index.htm
>
> >> > Why not check out one of those Behringer A500s ?
>
> >> I'm probably going to buy some A500s for church.
>
> > Take one home and try it there as well then.
>
> What sounds better than an amp that is indistinguishable from a straight
> wire?

I had a feeling you might say that.

I'm unconvinced of the results of your tests. I've heard those QSCs and one
reason I call them agricultural is 'cos they actually sound it. Read into that
whatever you like about the ear's ability to discern non-linearities !

Graham

[Arny Krueger]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >
>> >> > Arny Krueger wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Brat's a tubie, but now he wants us to think that hes' a
>> >> >> conoisseur of SS amps with his crack about my USA 400.
>> >>
>> >> > It is a perplexing choice of amplifier IMHO !
>> >>
>> >> Why?
>> >
>> > I have in the past rated that style of QSC design as being somewhat
>> > 'agricultural' ! I could elaborate at considerable length. You might
>> > not
>> > like it though.
>>
>> Trouble is, I know how that design does in straight wire bypass tests.
>
> And I know how 'badly' it measures ( for an SS amp ! ). Crossover in
> particular is truly horrid.

You obviously measured a different amp than I did.

> Not to mention a bag of other issues I have with that style of QSC
> architecture.

I'm interested.

>> Indeed, how that circuit sounds in a straight wire bypass test has been
>> posted for all to hear:

>> http://www.pcabx.com/product/usa-850/index.htm

>> >> > Why not check out one of those Behringer A500s ?
>>
>> >> I'm probably going to buy some A500s for church.
>>
>> > Take one home and try it there as well then.
>>
>> What sounds better than an amp that is indistinguishable from a straight
>> wire?

> I had a feeling you might say that.

Fact is, the amp passes tough blind listening tests.

> I'm unconvinced of the results of your tests. I've heard those QSCs and
> one
> reason I call them agricultural is 'cos they actually sound it. Read into
> that
> whatever you like about the ear's ability to discern non-linearities !

Listen for yourself.

[Arny Krueger]

"Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >
>> >
>> > " wrote:
>> >
>> >> not much has changed in the last.... 35 years for solid-state
>> >> excepting
>> >> around the edges.
>> >
>> > You are JOKING !
>> >
>> > You can't understand much about modern solid state design.
>> >
>> > Even the true complementary pair was essentially unknown 35 yrs ago.
>> > And
>> > that's for starters !
>>
>> 35 years ago was 1971, and I had been building and repairing SS amps for
>> about 8 years at the time.
>>
>> The true complementary pair was well-known and widely used in 1971. For
>> example, they were widely used as drivers for quasi-complementary output
>> stages. Common part numbers were 2N3053 and 2N4037 if memory serves.
>
> As *drivers* !!!!!!!!!!!

You never said complementary pair of what. However below, I show a amp
design from 1967 below that had complementary pre-drivers, drviers, and
outputs.

> Please pay attention Arny !

Say what you mean.

> I said ' complementary output ' - NOT - ' quasi-complementary output' !
> There's
> a HUGE difference.Not least in the sound.

Actually, the post I responded to does not contain the word "output" or any
synonyms.

>> There were some issues with the costs of high powered complementary
>> pairs,
>> but their use was well-known. Bart Locanthi is well-known for his design
>> of
>> the full complementary "T circuit" which appeared in a JBL power amp in
>> the
>> mid - 1960s. Please see this 1967 article
>> http://users.ece.gatech.edu/~mleach/papers/tcir/tcir.pdf My
>> recollection
>> is that the amp was new on the market at the time this article was
>> published.

> I may get round to reading that since you recommend it.

It proves my point, including outputs.

> The simple truth however is that it was device technology advances that
> made
> proper fully-complementary outputs viable only in the mid 70s.

Check my reference which is clearly dated 1967.

>> >> Speakers will use
>> >> better materials (sometimes) and tighter tolerances (sometimes), but
>> >> their essential function is unchanged. That the better materials and
>> >> tighter tolerances make them more efficient is a very good thing.
>>
>> Also better materials for magnets.
>>
>> > What about the use of modern materials to reduce cone break up ?
>>
>> Or at least control it.
>>
>> > Not to mention in all aspects of engineering - the use of CAD /
>> > somputer
>> > modelling to optimise designs.
>>
>> Agreed. Circuit modeling has greatly assisted the design of low
>> distortion
>> circuits.

> It's actually a fascinating area. As long ago as 1989 I was using Mathcad
> to
> create my own models for amplifier gain/phase/stability calculations.
> Today's
> off the shelf packages make it so much easier but the user may not fully
> understand the underlying principles any more though.

In 1965 I was writing Fortran programs that simulated the nonlinear
performance of transistors. I accurately predicted the distortion of an
emitter follower for example.

[Clyde Slick]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message
. ..
>

>
> Indeed, how that circuit sounds in a straight wire bypass test has been
> posted for all to hear:
>
> http://www.pcabx.com/product/usa-850/index.htm
>
>>> > Why not check out one of those Behringer A500s ?
>
>>> I'm probably going to buy some A500s for church.
>
>> Take one home and try it there as well then.
>
> What sounds better than an amp that is indistinguishable from a straight
> wire?
>

Might as well just save some money and just buy the wire!~



--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
------->>>>>>http://www.NewsDemon.com<<<<<<------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

[Pooh Bear]

Arny Krueger wrote:

> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Arny Krueger wrote:
> >
> >> "Pooh Bear" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > " wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> not much has changed in the last.... 35 years for solid-state
> >> >> excepting
> >> >> around the edges.
> >> >
> >> > You are JOKING !
> >> >
> >> > You can't understand much about modern solid state design.
> >> >
> >> > Even the true complementary pair was essentially unknown 35 yrs ago.
> >> > And
> >> > that's for starters !
> >>
> >> 35 years ago was 1971, and I had been building and repairing SS amps for
> >> about 8 years at the time.
> >>
> >> The true complementary pair was well-known and widely used in 1971. For
> >> example, they were widely used as drivers for quasi-complementary output
> >> stages. Common part numbers were 2N3053 and 2N4037 if memory serves.
> >
> > As *drivers* !!!!!!!!!!!
>
> You never said complementary pair of what.

" complementary output " has a *very* clear definition as far as I'm concerned.
That's why your example is called a " quasi-complementary output ". No
possibility of misunderstanding at all.


> However below, I show a amp
> design from 1967 below that had complementary pre-drivers, drviers, and
> outputs.
>
> > Please pay attention Arny !
>
> Say what you mean.

Pay attention to detail.


> > I said ' complementary output ' - NOT - ' quasi-complementary output' !
> > There's
> > a HUGE difference.Not least in the sound.
>
> Actually, the post I responded to does not contain the word "output" or any
> synonyms.

Now you're being obtuse.

Anyone with any relevant knowledge would understand full well what I was
referring to !

Graham

[George M. Middius]

Poopie said to the Krooborg:

> Now you're being obtuse.

I can't believe it, Poopie -- you actually said something accurate.

> Anyone with any relevant knowledge would understand full well what I was
> referring to !

Maybe, but you've now entered the "debating trade" zone. In this
peculiar dimension, your human values of communication are meaningless.
Clarity of language is subordinate to Krooglish. Logic is supplanted by
reflexive contradiction. Argumentation replaces facts, knowledge is
subsumed by lying, and religion takes supreamacy over science.

Don't go too far without a guide, Poopie. Even a lesser 'borg has
something to lose in the "debating trade" zone.