Horn tweeters V.S. aluminum dome tweeters

[nova]

Don't cha just love a good discussion that can stay on topic, does not stoop to name calling and personal attacks?

Keep going, I for one, find this very interesting.

[Sonnie]

I applaud you guys as well.

This is how we can really learn things and how civil discussions should be. This is an absolutely wonderful example thread.

[avaserfi]

DS-21 wrote:

Right. Thing is, a good CD design (separate waveguide or coax) tends to do that better than flush-mounted drivers...

Do you have measurements backing up this statement? Waveguides are designed to limit wide dispersion and from what I have seen tend to roll off off-axis frequency significantly.

Please note that quality off-axis frequency response being referred to by Chris and I would be around -5dB or so taken at 60 degrees at 15kHz.

DS-21 wrote:

It occurs to me from reading your description of room treatments that we're talking about entirely different applications. You're a strictly 2-channel (or 2.1), aren't you? I don't do 2-channel any more. I find that a center channel (even using plain DPL2) immensely enhances realism and my appreciation for recorded sounds generally. Even my nearfield system is 3.1 channel (8" Tannoy duals, JBL W15GTi). In my old flat it was 5.1, but my current office configuration does not make surrounds possible.

Correct, 2-channel audio is being discussed. Exactly how does the addition of a third channel increase your perceived realism? I am interested to see your impressions on this as this could be caused by the poor off-axis response of speakers with high directivity and their interaction with the room.

DS-21 wrote:

I question that only because the controlled directivity/fairly live room approach seems to yield very similar results to the omni/treated-to-death approach, but is much less aesthetically intrusive. If you haven't tried a good controlled directivity design, I'd recommend looking into it.

I have not seen any perceptual research that support this statement. Also, I have seen few to none omni-polar systems set up properly in terms of placement and room treatments.

DS-21 wrote:

Why? The axial response is flat enough, and the polar graphs are superb.

I would be interested in seeing credible 3rd party measurements to verify this.

Seems like this time I am just asking for links .

[WmAx]

DS-21 wrote:

It occurs to me from reading your description of room treatments that we're talking about entirely different applications. You're a strictly 2-channel (or 2.1), aren't you? I don't do 2-channel any more. I find that a center channel (even using plain DPL2) immensely enhances realism and my appreciation for recorded sounds generally. Even my nearfield system is 3.1 channel (8" Tannoy duals, JBL W15GTi). In my old flat it was 5.1, but my current office configuration does not make surrounds possible.

I don't do multichannel as of yet due to lack of standards to produce true realistic reproduction. But as for subjective claims, I have no intention of making such statements in this thread, if you expected such.

I question that only because the controlled directivity/fairly live room approach seems to yield very similar results to the omni/treated-to-death approach, but is much less aesthetically intrusive. If you haven't tried a good controlled directivity design, I'd recommend looking into it.

One would not yield a similar result with a wide even dispersion system unless one treated the 1st reflection points with absorbers, which I certainly would not. Go back and refer to the treatment approach I described. The 1st wall reflections are a critical part of the sound quality, in regards to maximizing timbre resolution of recorded material and enhancing spatial properties. This method is based on properties found by Toole, Olive, Ando and other perceptual researchers that increase perceived sound quality.

Why? The axial response is flat enough, and the polar graphs are superb.

Super to who's standard? I consider it useless for my purpose(which is maximized realism and timbre resolution). In addition, I don't expect much from this in regards to cabinet resonance properties or even in regards to driver resonances.

True, but the thing is, controlling edge diffraction is part of controlling directivity. So it's really just the flip side of the coin.

You have that backwards. In your use, controlling directivity avoids diffraction by never encountering the baffle edges. But a design with a proper curved baffle has no such problem with diffraction, and in addition, can have very wide dispersion.

-Chris

[Sonnie]

Sonnie wrote:

What speakers does he own?

But you wrote:

Note what his speakers, which I consider some of the best currently available at their given price points,

Now you really have be wondering... how do you consider them some of the best currently available at their given price points if you don't know what he owns.

[A.T.M.]

Sonnie wrote:

But you wrote:

Note what his speakers, which I consider some of the best currently available at their given price points,

Now you really have be wondering... how do you consider them some of the best currently available at their given price points if you don't know what he owns.

I was under the impression that he was making reference toward speakers that had benefited greatly from the adaptation/implementation or "[usage]" of Toole's research, Toole's former employer, Harman.

But what do I know, this is my first post and the first thread I've read top to bottom on this thread. Wonderful job gents, I've had a great time lurking. I still wish some of it wasn't over my head.

Aaron

P.S. Thanks Sonnie, for making the Shack a reality.