Visit to Audiophile Bill to hear his horns project

[iansr]

Thanks for that confirmation.

I do understand the room correction component of those programs however my goal is to achieve the best response ( B&K I believe - in agreement with Bill) from the speakers, provide the optimum acoustic environment in the room and then, if needed , room correction. I am sure the less you do of the latter the better - and you need some clever averaging of response from multiple locations to get a good overall room response

I am sure there are some very clever algorithms in the software that address these issues but I don't see how it can be as good as a staged approach.
When I have finished I can always test the theory out

Cheers
Phil

On room correction, there is a partial correction option with AudioLense whereby you only correct for the bass frequencies. (I think it was Toole who said, above the Schroeder frequency the speakers are in charge but below it the room is in charge.).
My apologies to Bill for dragging this thread OT. We should drop this subject now and return the thread to Bill’s speakers.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

On room correction, there is a partial correction option with AudioLense whereby you only correct for the bass frequencies. (I think it was Toole who said, above the Schroeder frequency the speakers are in charge but below it the room is in charge.).
My apologies to Bill for dragging this thread OT. We should drop this subject now and return the thread to Bill’s speakers.

Not at all, Ian. Please keep this discussion going as is both interesting and hopefully educational.

cheers.

 

[pjwd]

At the risk of driving Bills thread over a cliff below is a plot at listening position in my room. It is not time gated and has a rectangular window.
As you can see there are dips up to 400Hz and perhaps 800Hz . These do not exist outside so are room related. If you move the mic around the room these dips flatten and others appear. This would be typical of any room. Now imagine an overlay of raw drivers plus room effects - it would be chaos !

I just don't see how the software can distinguish between room modes, early reflections and the required filters for each driver in a prioritised way although I am sure, as I said in the previous post, that there is some very clever software behind both programs and my fears may be unfounded.
I just like treating crossover, room acoustics and room correction as separate stages

I know folks are getting good results with acourate measurements and hopefully I will be able to test one against the other

Cheers
Phil

 

[iansr]

Phil, I would strongly recommend reading Mitch’s (MItchCo) articles on Audiophyle Style. They will answer your questions much better than I can. He has also done a YouTube video.

 

[pjwd]

Phil, I would strongly recommend reading Mitch’s (MItchCo) articles on Audiophyle Style. They will answer your questions much better than I can. He has also done a YouTube video.

Ian
Will do .. back to regular program

 

[Don Reid]

It seems to me that most people lump all DSP software and hardware solutions into the one basket. You don’t have to dwell on that thought very long to realise that it is on a par with asserting that all DACs sound the same.

I notice that DEQX was not among the various DSP systems discussed. To me it presents a realistic result. I quite enjoy analog sources played through the DEQX. Remember when Alon Wolf designed Magico's "Ultimate" horn speakers he chose DEQX DSP to be part of the package.

 

[pjwd]

I notice that DEQX was not among the various DSP systems discussed. To me it presents a realistic result. I quite enjoy analog sources played through the DEQX. Remember when Alon Wolf designed Magico's "Ultimate" horn speakers he chose DEQX DSP to be part of the package.

Don
I think deqx is a great piece of kit and used a mates years ago to help optimise crossover design... it was a revelation 15 or so years ago !
2 buddies had deqx for many years and they have moved on to audio lens convolution and multuchannel dacs and believe they get a superior result .. an audiophile itch they needed to scratch ! There is an idea that the analogue stage is not top notch but it seemed good to me
Having said that I am going down the convolution path as there are alternative measurement and implementation options
Phil

 

[morricab]

I notice that DEQX was not among the various DSP systems discussed. To me it presents a realistic result. I quite enjoy analog sources played through the DEQX. Remember when Alon Wolf designed Magico's "Ultimate" horn speakers he chose DEQX DSP to be part of the package.

I use a mini-DSP nano-digi for two reasons 1) It is only digital and I use my own, high quality DACs...no reliance on the company making the DSP to make good DAC stages (I find most suck). 2) It is very inexpensive for what it can do...and it does it well.

The only digital crossover I have used in the past that was easier to use was the Behringer DCX 2496 but it has only analog out and frankly it doesn't sound very good. I have heard that it can be dramatically improved by bypassing all of the analog output stages...but I haven't bothered to do surgery on mine.

What I am considering now is a Marchand X126 active tube crossover. Anyone familiar with Marchand's tube crossovers?

 

[Audiophile Bill]

I use a mini-DSP nano-digi for two reasons 1) It is only digital and I use my own, high quality DACs...no reliance on the company making the DSP to make good DAC stages (I find most suck). 2) It is very inexpensive for what it can do...and it does it well.

The only digital crossover I have used in the past that was easier to use was the Behringer DCX 2496 but it has only analog out and frankly it doesn't sound very good. I have heard that it can be dramatically improved by bypassing all of the analog output stages...but I haven't bothered to do surgery on mine.

What I am considering now is a Marchand X126 active tube crossover. Anyone familiar with Marchand's tube crossovers?

Always fancied trying myself, Brad. I never got around to investing in the Marchand.

I did buy a couple of solid state Xkitz boards out of morbid curiosity though.

 

[morricab]

Always fancied trying myself, Brad. I never got around to investing in the Marchand.

I did buy a couple of solid state Xkitz boards out of morbid curiosity though.

Yeah, the only SS active crossover I have tried that I liked was the Accuphase F25 but even that still sounded...well SS. So any non-digital xover would need to be either passive or active with tubes. Maybe I will take the plunge.

 

[DaveC]

I've come to the conclusion that the horn and driver really need to be designed together as a unit, often some elements of driver or horn design can be tweaked mechanically to provide the desired outcome which avoids complication with dsp or a more complex xo. I've had the best results from this approach + a relatively simple analog xo, and trying to keep the electronics end of things as simple as possible which also includes using a simple SET amp. For me and the music I enjoy this works well and honestly amounts to a very complex augmented single driver setup. If I prioritized symphonic music I'd have either more horns and amps plus a more complex xo, or a even very large conventional speakers as the larger 4+ way horn systems require a lot of space and expense. I think horns end up being a more personalized way to setup an audio system as there are so many ways to implement the speaker, but for those foolish enough to get into it, very satisfying...

 

[Audiophile Bill]

Yeah, the only SS active crossover I have tried that I liked was the Accuphase F25 but even that still sounded...well SS. So any non-digital xover would need to be either passive or active with tubes. Maybe I will take the plunge.

There is also line level passive….

 

[Audiophile Bill]

I've come to the conclusion that the horn and driver really need to be designed together as a unit, often some elements of driver or horn design can be tweaked mechanically to provide the desired outcome which avoids complication with dsp or a more complex xo. I've had the best results from this approach + a relatively simple analog xo, and trying to keep the electronics end of things as simple as possible which also includes using a simple SET amp. For me and the music I enjoy this works well and honestly amounts to a very complex augmented single driver setup. If I prioritized symphonic music I'd have either more horns and amps plus a more complex xo, or a even very large conventional speakers as the larger 4+ way horn systems require a lot of space and expense. I think horns end up being a more personalized way to setup an audio system as there are so many ways to implement the speaker, but for those foolish enough to get into it, very satisfying...

Very true Dave. Truth is if you spend any significant time in Hornresp and / or measuring horns + drivers combo you quickly realise that the combo is everything. Nowadays I wouldn’t bother to investigate a driver where I couldn’t get the requisite t/s parameters to model it as nauseam before building something.

 

[christoph]

There is also line level passive….

...that would go between the Preamp and then send the crossed over frequency range to the Poweramp?

 

[Audiophile Bill]

...that would go between the Preamp and then send the crossed over frequency range to the Poweramp?

Hi Chris,

Yes exactly right. So depending on how many “ways” your system is, the line level passive will split the full signal from the preamp into the various frequency bands to the amplifiers.

So if you have a 4 way horn for example. The line level passive will require 4 stereo amplifiers or 8 monoblocks to power a stereo system.

All this is no different of course to an active crossover - same applies just you have an active gain stage in the mix.

 

[Solypsa]

As an example ( not saying the 'most high end' ) Marchand sells passive xo boards that may be installed into, say, an amps input...

 

[christensenleif@msn.com]

I used the XM 46 between my TVC and my sub amps on line lvl ...worked like a charm and totally noise free
AG Trio 130Hz lopass 24db/oct

 

[morricab]

Hi Chris,

Yes exactly right. So depending on how many “ways” your system is, the line level passive will split the full signal from the preamp into the various frequency bands to the amplifiers.

So if you have a 4 way horn for example. The line level passive will require 4 stereo amplifiers or 8 monoblocks to power a stereo system.

All this is no different of course to an active crossover - same applies just you have an active gain stage in the mix.

ever tried line level passives? I have not and not sure how good that actually works. Probably need to have some way to control levels between drivers.

 

[Audiophile Bill]

ever tried line level passives? I have not and not sure how good that actually works. Probably need to have some way to control levels between drivers.

Not tried myself but you do have control of level on all drivers in a passive. You just use a transformer volume control or similar.

I know Thomas Mayer has made at least a couple with LCR based networks. Here is a link to one such:

The Passive Line Level Crossover

Hi! Here some photos of a custom passive line level crossover. It is a passive crossover to be placed between preamp and power am...

vinylsavor.blogspot.com

 

[iansr]

Hi Chris,

Yes exactly right. So depending on how many “ways” your system is, the line level passive will split the full signal from the preamp into the various frequency bands to the amplifiers.

So if you have a 4 way horn for example. The line level passive will require 4 stereo amplifiers or 8 monoblocks to power a stereo system.

All this is no different of course to an active crossover - same applies just you have an active gain stage in the mix.

The terminology around this stuff varies a bit. Personally I think of any system that splits the audio signal so as to allow one channel of amplification to drive just one driver as being “active”.