Why Synergy horns?

In another thread I was asked, if I would provide more details about my speakers, so I thought why not?

I have played on active 4 way horn systems since 2016. First iteration was front loaded bass horn, midbass horn, tractrix midrange horn and tractrix tweeter horn. I worked nicely, with all the attributes associated with well implemented horns. Clarity, dynamics, realistic live sound etc.

However some problems will arise, with such horns. First of all, the center to center distance between the different horns is big, compared to the crossover frequencies. We need to be within 1/4 wave in distance at x-over for a seamless transition. For instance if you x-over from the midrange horn to the tweeter horn at 3 KHz the c-to-c distance would have to be 340/3000/4= 2.83 cm (1.11 inch). This is virtually impossible with "normal" horn configurations. This problem rears its ugly head, at every x-over throughout the audio frequency range. As frequency decreases, the wavelengths gets bigger, but so does the horns in the specific bandpass and then c-t-c also increases. It is a linear problem, that can't be solved with the regular approach, aka stacking horns on top of each other. This creates interference problems and lobing in the vertical response curves, that will color the reflection from floor and ceiling. Secondly a large column of vertically stacked horns, will push the sweet spot (SS) further back, for the horns to be perceived as more coherent and integrated, with one another.

But the biggest problem is that almost all horns beam with increasing frequency, it's their way of nature so to speak. What that means, is that the off-axis FR will not be similar to the on-axis FR. This translate into a poor power response, which is not considered a good thing, in terms of best sound quality.

Luckily we can circumvent all these problems with clever engineering and have our cake and eat it too, so to speak. Enter the Synergy horn.synergy.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
As for measurements, this can be debated as well - the performance of DACs using test signals may not be an indicator of their performance using complex signals (music).
That is a strawman, if a products measure below certain thresholds, it will be transparent to the human ear. A thorough test would include a intermodulation distortion test.
 
That is a strawman, if a products measure below certain thresholds, it will be transparent to the human ear. A thorough test would include a intermodulation distortion test.

Digital audio is complex. Here are some explanations of what's at play:


And a follow up post illustrating the limitations of specs and measurements:


It is only a point of view, and you can choose to ignore it. In my experience, efforts to deal with these issues do provide significant differences in sound, but there is probably still progress to be made.
 
That is a strawman, if a products measure below certain thresholds, it will be transparent to the human ear. A thorough test would include a intermodulation distortion test.

You mean like below the B/L laws/group delay and phase issues that the ear is not sensitive too?? Or can't be heard playing music in real room and not special tests in headphones???

A perfect impulse response is great for spec's! What if you can't hear it??

Different doesn't mean better?? Any DBT's in there or just technical measurement improvements that you can't hear?????

Rob :)
 
Last edited:
If audiophiles worried as much about acoustics and speaker qualities (like directivity, superposition, time alignment and IMD) as do they about DA conversion, cables etc., they would have had actually had great sound systems and worth paying a visit to!

It continues to surprise me how much focus many audiophiles have on either areas that mean nothing or where the difference is minimal, and avoid focusing on the large areas. And it's always about going up against science and psycoacoustics, but have nothing to show for.

Sure, we can always discuss whether a SINAD needs to be at 105 dB or 110 dB to be audible transparent for all, but at the very best we're talking about a microscopic difference that would require great hearing (basically young people), great acoustic environment, and training with specific tracks to distinguish.

Obvious differences are easily heard in a serious test. What about starting to focus on this rather than possible differences no one can prove exists?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jägerst.
You mean like below the B/L laws/group delay and phase issues that the ear is not sensitive too?
There should not be any serious group delay and phase problems with well made hifi electronics. Only speaker/room have these issues, a well made FIR filter will clean that up. What is B/L laws?
 
Obvious differences are easily heard in a serious test. What about starting to focus on this rather than possible differences no one can prove exists?

99% of digital audio produces the same lifeless sound. So I can understand that you may not be convinced that this is an important aspect in audio and that you have a closed mind about this.
 
99% of digital audio produces the same lifeless sound. So I can understand that you may not be convinced that this is an important aspect in audio and that you have a closed mind about this.
Or perhaps it's just revealing the lifeless sound of the system, which is mainly the speakers and the acoustics of the room.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Nicktube
That's exactly what it is, neuroses. Worrying about something that

Or perhaps it's just revealing the lifeless sound of the system, which is mainly the speakers and the acoustics of the room.

I worked on my room's acoustics and enjoyed the system even more, yet the acoustics have not fundamentally changed the systems's sound and the reasons I appreciate it so much. Go figure...
 
Last edited:
Well, I don't know anyone who has spent great care on objective, psychoacoustics, and measurable areas in their sytem who have come to this conclusion: "99% of digital audio produces the same lifeless sound"
Quite the contrary.
 
Last edited:
Well, I don't know anyone who has spent great care on objective and measurable areas in their sytem who have come to this conclusion: "99% of digital audio produces the same lifeless sound"
Quite the contrary.

We don't know what we have never heard...

There are many ways of enjoying music. As I type this, I am listening to music with cheap headphones plugged in to my phone.

The so-called "neurosis" is not an issue!
 
We don't know what we have never heard...

There are many ways of enjoying music. As I type this, I am listening to music with cheap headphones plugged in to my phone.

The so-called "neurosis" is not an issue!
That's true. But can I point out something about response you have in your thread? Your frequency response is exactly very much lifeless in regards to the tonality IMO. The response is overall more falling in areas where it should be raising.You lack about 15 dB between 90 Hz to 115 Hz, which is a heck of lot in this important fundamental area. And there's a broad cancellation between 8 kHz and 12 kHz.
 
Last edited:
There are many ways of enjoying music.
Sure, but my objective is accuracy to the recording and to achieve that, the frequency response should be even with a slight tilt. By the way your FR looks ok, but with room for improvements.
 
Looking at graphs and listening are two very different things!

That being said, there is always room for improvements:)
 
Last edited:
Looking at graphs and listening are two very different things!
Sure, one involves the eyes and the other the ears, but they are indeed linked. You see, there is great correlation between a frequency response and how that FR is perceived in terms of SQ.
 
A little story from my DIY audio buddy in Norway. At their annual Hifi Show at Horten last week, he rented a showroom to present his DIY speakers. An active system, with DSP and IR correction made with Audiolense. Amps are Dynamic Precision and some class D stuff. Good speaker drivers from Blisma and Acoustic Elegance, so nothing outrageous, overpriced BS. Just very good components.
Other DIY things from other showgoers were also shown.

Lots of people reporting back, that it was the best sound of the show.

Fine tuning stage.
20230922_172901.jpg

IMG_7321.jpeg
One of many comments translated freely.
"Sweetspot in this room, was for me, the best sound of the show. This was grandiose, precise and with an incredible nice soundbalance. Did not know the music, it was liberating. I did like it a lot.".....Many comments like that from others. "Does it proof anything?" I can already hear you thinking that :D probably not, but I would say this; people acknowledge accurate sound when they hear it.

Let's have a look at the target curve. Looks like a sports car :) but the general trend is a downward tilting curve towards higher frequencies.
105.PNG
 
  • Like
Reactions: hopkins
@schlager @Bjorn :

So far this thread has been quite interesting with arguments made in favor of dispersion control via loudspeaker topology and also for the use of digital tools for loudspeaker management. Of course there are some that doubt the use of digital tools.

To move forward in this thread, lmho, we can acknowledge the use of MiniDSP and basic SS amplifiers as used by above referenced posters, and presume the value of digital tools is not in question, and ask :

What, if anything, would the two referenced posters use as an advancement upon MiniDSP and SS 'pro' amps? Question is interesting because if answered in one way it would imply that this is already the top possible replay system ( cost and effort not an object ); and if answered in another way could illustrate areas that merit more attention.

For example I briefly mentioned AES67 / Dante in an earlier post. Not because I have an opinion on this technology but to try and dig a bit deeper into ideals within this { digital file - digital sound processing -solid state amplifiers -horn loaded speaker } paradigm....
 
  • Like
Reactions: schlager
Solypsa
I'm waiting for the new Danville Nexus and the new DEQX. They are likely to measure better than the miniDSP Flex. But more importantly, they will have a lot more processing power and options which opens up for better and more accurate speaker calibration.

Not surprisingly I use Vera Audio power amps in my system, and they are among the best measurable amps in the market.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Solypsa

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

User Menu

Steve Williams
Site Founder | Site Owner | Administrator
Ron Resnick
Site Co-Owner | Administrator
Julian (The Fixer)
Website Build | Marketing Managersing