new living voice prototype horns

Actually I do not need to answer carefully as it is not the subject of my personal preference but reference points and objectives.

Audio is simple. Audio is like programming in Visual Basic: even if you are complete idiot then you still can write some elementary code and it will work. Still, I would not deny that there was a huge number of extraordinary complex and highly performing systems writhen in that Visual Basic and the keys for success were not the primitivism of the language but the will of the engineers who use it in sophisticated manner, forcing the language to perform in the way they need it. The very same is with acoustic systems.

Different topologies have different ?points of expressiveness?, different limitations and different ?capitalizeable moments?. It is only up to the determination of a person how to employ opportunities that the given topology offers in orders to reflect with the accomplishments the sound of own vision. BTW, it is one of the reasons why I always interested about the thinking of a person about audio as I know that regardless how much money or years s/he spend s/he always end up with nothing more then the audio reflection of own mind. It is exactly the reasons why if I have undeniable evidences of the person individual idiocy (and there are a few at this forum) I wipe out the person from any prospective audio collaborators. Did I go to tangent? Not really as I feel that people who operate at the level blaming other in ?tooth fairy? are ?not advanced?. Peoples should be blamed for actions, not for believes and my life-experience indicates that people blame others only when they have own problems on the subject of blaming?

So, in context of what I said I think it would NOT be useful to ?compare? Quads with properly implemented horns but rather to look at pure Audio objectives of the people who build playback around Quad or around horns. However, we should not take out of condition that Quad are Quads and they are defined. With the horns everything is different and there are very few actually properly-implemented horns installations as over 99% of horn systems are just are very badly implemented horns.

Remember my example with Visual Basic? You can brainlessly pile up any horn with nay drivers, connect them to any voltage souse then will ?sound?. It is exactly what 99% of Morons ? do out there ? and everything works! The question would be? what is the definition of ?it works?. It would be up to the reference points and the demands of the person and it is where many audio people underperform. I semi-intentionally do not answer your question because I would propose you to go deeper into the question and define for yourself what you are would like to hear as a ?satisfactory answer?. If you defile you yourself the rules for the ?correct? answer then you will provide to yourself 80% of the answer itself?

Rgs, Romy the Cat
________
U TRANSMISSION

 

Yes, of course. That's what I meant, too. But now I don't understand you. from the photos, it looks as if the bass towers sit 45 cm behind the speakers, a bit to the left. How are they time-aligned in that position?

My apologies. Of course, the image was taken from the thread you linked to which talked about the time alignment of your speakers.

 

I'm not a fan of such electrostatic loudspeakers. I find that they drain the life, the intent, the meaning and the colour from music. Regardless of horn loading or not, I tend to prefer multiway moving coil drivers which usually give me a result closer to what I want or expect from the recording.

I see you have had similar reservations

"the electrostats have huge dynamic compression, have sensitively less the 80, require 500W of stupid and mostly improperly implemented power, have totally unacceptable dipole bass and while they play piano they convert the piano into an harp…"

I was perhaps expecting a response more along those lines. However, I think I've grasped the meaning of your chosen 'content loaded' reply well enough.

 

I always heard that "sub bass" doesnt have to be time-aligned, on the contrary, the advantage of subwoofers is that you can place them for better bass, leaving the speakers placed for better image...

As a matter of fact, when I did time align mine using delay in the processor, even though the difference in that case was about 50 cm behind the speakers, I could hear them separate, back to no time alignement, and the sound was correct...

Dont ask me why, I can only guess that it is because at those frequencies we hear so much the reflections...

 

The bass towers might sit wherever they want, it is irrelevant. For the subject of alignment is important to align the cones of the channels (there is more to it but I do not what to go there). In my bass towers the cones are located at the very front baffle of the enclosure. In horns the cones are way back, in fact in my drivers the cones are WAY back. In upperbass channel the cone at the being of the back bulge. If you look at the one of my old article then it will give you the idea.

http://www.goodsoundclub.com/GetPost.aspx?PostID=2784

Rgs, Romy the Cat
________
TOYOTA COROLLA HISTORY

 

Okay, I understand now. Thanks for the explanation. It seems I was mislead by the photos.

 

Markus it's not easy to make a case for flat horns given the inherent compromises. It was in response to the scathing attack of the LV really, pointing out that Romy's speakers are neither properly time aligned, nor free from unwanted diffraction and therefore equally compromised and "horrible". You and others can see this as well as I can.

The design that Romy employs would I suspect work in a larger room with a higher ceiling - although I would still have to redesign the bass channels because I have heard the effects of time smear on bass wave launches and it is a very real source of colouration.

Sadly we've yet to get a cohesive case put forward for the layout, certainly not one th at stands up to scrutiny.

 

I intentionally did not go to this direction because it was too simple. We all know the ?playbook answers? but I would like to look behind, recognizing the intentions and correlating the means of accomplishments. Even if we scope ourselves only with some kind of initially inferior topologies but have noble objectives and civilized referents points then even the inferior topologies might become a tool that might bring some fertile results. How about to arm the high-passed electrostatic with acoustic lenses and drive them with powerful direct-coupled transmission triodes with 5000V on plate? Arming that with a properly made dedicated LF section (made specially for THAT sound) it is possible that the result might be sensible. People jutst do not go there?

As I said, it is not about the techniques or topologies but the awareness of the person and the person?s will to interpret his visions via means off those audio toys. The vision, the targets vision are the key. If person is idiot then give him entire Harman International in his/her disposal and she/he will still end up with crapy result. I can give you many examples of various idiots (some of them popup themself up in this thread) whose native intrinsic idiocy prohibits them form getting into better Real Audio or, the most important the understanding of the Real Audio?s aspects.

Rgs, Romy the Cat
________
Yamaha mt-100

 

Are you saying that even 'primitive' forms of audio reproduction can be made to work in a 'satisfactory' manner?

For example a loud speaker mounted n a box given enough thought and application of knowledge could work well enough?

Or are you saying that using a speaker in a box enclosure is a primitive use of the technology?

thanks

 

There is a difference between ?primitive? forms of audio reproduction and the primitive understating of the reproductive results. Sound that comes from playback is a result of playback?s efforts and listening awareness. With advanced listening awareness the playback efforts might be insultingly minimalistic. However, if the goal is not just music listening but the applied interests in music reproduction then the envelope of playback efforts might be pushed. It is important to understand however is that playback efforts have no DIRECT connectivity with appreciation of music. Audio and Music are very different animals and when you ask about the ?satisfactory manner? you should realize what is target of your ?satisfaction?: is it musicality of is the pure ?Abstract Audio ??. I know that many of you disagree with me on it, but I would like to spare unnecessary arguments, I know them, and just inform you that I was in the position of your arguments and then, I had my motives to move my views further.

Rgs, Romy the caT
________
Extreme q vaporizer

 

I don't disagree with you I just haven't managed to really understand where you are coming from yet despite reading most of the things on your site.

I will continue to try and understand. I got into audio reproduction as a means to listen to music as I'm sure you did.

Have you a source that would help me understand the differences in music and audio as you understand it?

 

THats not been my experience.

Boundary reinforcement can effect any speaker of course, but I've found sub-bass isn't 'mono' or 'not applicable to time alignment'... I've often found such things said by subwoofer sales people however!

 

You might look at those posts:

http://www.GoodSoundClub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=3400

http://www.GoodSoundClub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=4288

http://www.GoodSoundClub.com/TreeItem.aspx?PostID=254

or at a few others. To make things is very simple: let pretend that all your ?big audio? have burned out tomorrows is house fire. Sure, it is disasters event in your audio life; however will it affect your interest in musicality? The very next day you will buy a table radio for $49.95 and will be listening your local FM classical station or go for your local Symphony Hall. Absents of highly performing audio would restrict you from making some musical researches but at very minor degree and in a long run your audio-fire catastrophe will be no even in your musical journey. Try wise versa, pretend your interest to interpreting and to discovering life via musicality have evaporated. Then practically instantaneously ? nothing will happens. 99% of the Morons out there ?do audio? with no specific interest in musicality and if their playback would play a dictation of the telephone book listing then they will do audio with the same level of madness. The point is that Audio is purely self-contained and encapsulated discipline. Sure it use a lot of cultural pointers, including the musical pointers to navigate itself but I think that as soon we merge audio and music in a same entity then we begin to lie to yourself, at least I know that I do.

Rgs, Romy the Cat
________
Chrysler Valiant History

 

Thank you, reading those posts in context helps a lot.

I don't need to give you an answer to your question do I

 

Is John Betjeman,reading the telephone directory available on vinyl?

 

This is one of the more ridiculous statements seen on ZG - utter drivel with not a single bone of evidence to support the statement.

The reference to Harman can only be to Floyd Toole. To call Floyd Tool an idiot is a remarkable display of stupidity, considering that the guy has more knowledge about audio and speaker design in his navel hair than the poster is likely to have in his entire lifetime.

Come on Romy, instead of pontificating like some higher being ( which you no doubt actually think you are), why not answer the questions as to why you have not addressed all the very demonstrable issues with your own design? If you are unable to discuss matters on a globally accepted objective level, then you are bogus. Because in order to progress beyond the levels identifiable through objectivity and empirical research and reach a higher plane, first you must grasp the basic language of audio and be fluent in it. Floyd Toole is. Are you?

 

Those you have listed before, or do you feel there are more?

 

Well I might also have concerns about the energy response towards to upper limit of the passband on the midrange horn but I think the other issues remain unresolved as it stands would you agree?

 

Romy, Do you really need to call the rest of the world idiot? You have some interlect that is clear. I have read over your site, most of it is way over my head - I do not claim an interlect - I am here on this site to help me improve my enjoyment and understanding of music reproduction. If you are as good as you appear then please share your skills in a socially acceptable way.

Do not feel the need to score points against others who may have less S & N than you. Your social skills are lacking and even as a complete moron I can notice this fact.You have no real excuse unless you want to claim madness.

For me a serious relationship with other humans is more important than serious knowledge on musical reproduction - Why do you want to be a cat? I call you an utter idiot human for not attempting to make human friends on this new forum. I suggest that you read - The drama of being a child -The search for the true self by Alice Miller ISBN 1-86049-101-4. (PM me your address I will send it for free)

It may help you understand why you appear a shit to others.
If you dont care thats fine with me - thats your decision -then I will ingore your comments as though they were useless.

Andy

 

yuck

Andy, I'm embarrassed, as a fellow Brit, at your condescending post. I've met ghastly people like you who reccomend ghastly literature and i don't want to meet any more.
When I first stumbled on a Romy post a year or so ago it took me maybe 3 minutes to realise
1. there is something worth understanding here
and
2. The direct manner is an awful lot of fun.

After all, the whole world IS idiotic. I wish more of us would shout and scream about what we truly believe rather than pander to received wisdoms or authorities of all sorts - self-help books included. Maybe your expectation of everyone to be mock-chummy (serious human relationships in a hifi forum?!) says something about your childhood traumas.

I'm not here to stick up for Romy. As he says himself his super-developed ego doesn't need it.

hmmm
didn't expect this sort of thing to be the subject of my first post here.
op.9

"Peoples should be blamed for actions, not for believes and my life-experience indicates that people blame others only when they have own problems on the subject of blaming…"

is actually quite profound.