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.

 

How do you determine the level at which this "masking" occurs?

This is also very good understood. Through the MP3 media codec we have a great understanding of masking. Just play some music and then experiment with different background noises at different levels.

 

Active speakers that measure well in the essential areas (good power response and dispersion pattern that suits the area)

Hello schlager

I agree with all your points except 1. Speakers should have good power response however they do not necessarily have to be active. Passive designs done right can also yield excellent results.

I understand that it may be the Ultimate laundry list but the industry seems to be more than a bit behind on active home speakers. Until that changes it's an uphill climb to take amp selection away and the option of using SET Class A or AB to drive the speakers and to accept DSP at all in say an all analog system.

Rob

 

Yep, science probably doesn't help if one have a skewed preference

I rather leave science to the manufacturers and judge by the end result. I like the way Arthur Salvatore explains things (http://www.high-endaudio.com/philos.html), from his skewed perspective (note: the reference to tubes and turntables is irrelevant):


---

"In my many years as an audio retailer, I had regular visits from hard-core audio sceptics, who only believed in specifications (and almost always loathed tubes and, later, turntables). Most of the time, I just listened, told them I disagreed, and then continued the discussion in a strictly business vein. However, on a few occassions, I decided to try to "convert" them to my perspective, using multiple component comparisons. So what happened? While I was able, in certain circumstances, to demonstrate the existence of low-level information to a few of them, I was never able, even once, to "convert" that person into feeling it was important and to join the "audiophile community".

To be specific, when these objectivists finally admitted hearing the extra information (provided usually by tube electronics), they always went on to say that it was "much too subtle" to be concerned about, and usually further stated that they "couldn't understand how anyone could make such a 'big deal' about almost nothing". These events were rare and tiny "victories" for me, though still quite satisfying. This was because I always had the same last words ready for the objectivist: "It's the love and pursuit of these same audio 'subtleties' that defines an audiophile."

---

If the "science" of audio could provide a perfect system, then we would not be arguing about all this. But faced with imperfection, we make choices based on our preferences (not necessarily based on science).

 

Passive designs done right can also yield excellent results.

Sure, but it can't beat an active design. I just don't see what sound quality benefits a passive solution would have over an active filter. One approach is the minimalistic one with first-order filters and the fewest possible lossy components in the signal path. There will still be no fewer than zero, which is the number (0) of passive components you have between the power amplifier and speaker driver in an active speaker. Another approach is the Duelund with complex phase-corrected filters and countless compensation circuits to linearize the impedance curves so that the filters work as the mathematics dictates. It is far easier to implement a phase-linear filter digitally and use a power amplifier that does not care what impedance curve it is served. Then the signal delivered to the speaker motor is exactly what the mathematics dictates and there are still no lossy passive components between the power amplifier and the speaker motor. The amplifiers will perform their best, only seeing a narrow bandpass, damping factor is retained, because x-over is done before the amplification, so the control over the speaker driver is much better, which of course gives better sound.

The only arguments I see for a passive solution is that it is simpler and cheaper, but I don't see that sound quality should be an argument for that direction.

the industry seems to be more than a bit behind on active home speakers.

I honestly believe that it is only a matter of a few years before the main focus of the industry turns towards active dsp and plug and play solutions and maybe also for the expensive hifi market, for the simple reason that people have become used to it and are beginning to expect it.

Personally, I think the new generation of people cares very little about traditions and romantic ideas that things should be in this way or that way, they want quality and simplicity at a reasonable price. The hifi industry also has to turn in that direction to survive. Parallel to that development, we will still have the expensive hifi jewelry for a declining group of people.

 

There is a whole "genre" of speakers designed to specifically address this (ex: granite speakers!).

Yes, the speaker cabinet should be as silent as possible or we could potential hear it as a second sound source, just like 1. reflections arriving to soon after the direct sound, diminishing clarity and imaging.

Some speaker companies seem to base their sound "philosophy" on, that the cabinet should sing and vibrate like an instrument (violin, piano). I don't find any logic in that philosophy.

 

I won't name things, but there are clear outliers in the overall correlation between the principles you enumerated and my perceived quality score.

You heard what you heard, I won't argue against your experience, but I will say this; without a more thoroughly approach (read measurements) on why something sounded good or bad, all bets are off. Often the need for electronics with a lot of distortion, comes into play when the response is too much off into the woods, or there are other weaknesses to which the ears are sensitive. In my book, it is not a sign of quality.

 

To be specific, when these objectivists finally admitted hearing the extra information (provided usually by tube electronics)

Extra information? So now distortion is perceived as "extra information". Added distortion will increase the signal and often it will be perceived as having more treble.

Let's clear up the terminology here.

- An amplifier should amplify the signal without changing it.

- A component that adds distortion is an "effects box". I prefer using EQ.

The search for matching electronics has primarily been about covering up other weaknesses (speakers/room), unaware of that of course. But there are a number of enthusiasts who allow themselves to be seduced by components with, in some cases, have a striking amount of distortion (own sound - colored sound). Especially if it comes with a high price tag.

Many people like a certain type of distortion and their accustomed “own sound”, so it will be hard to find an agreement on that, but rest assured that if there is an objective fault with a hifi product, it is never the reason why something sounds good.

 

If the "science" of audio could provide a perfect system, then we would not be arguing about all this. But faced with imperfection, we make choices based on our preferences (not necessarily based on science).

I think that most people in this hobby probably haven't heard a objectively good measuring system in a good room, with the capacity for a realistic sound reproduction.

That so many people deny, the laws that apply is a mystery to me. The same methods are used in everything that is made, and we are dependent on these laws being reliable. The same laws are used in everything that is made with electronics. If we couldn't rely on these laws, we couldn't use mass production as we couldn't rely on the next item in the series being the same as the previous one.

So no, there is no magic in audio and our understanding of audio, both the reproduction chain and the human perceiving mechanism, is pretty much full circle. Please give me some examples of what we experience/hear in audio, that can't be explained.

 

Extra information? So now distortion is perceived as "extra information". Added distortion will increase the signal and often it will be perceived as having more treble.

Let's clear up the terminology here.

- An amplifier should amplify the signal without changing it.

- A component that adds distortion is an "effects box". I prefer using EQ.

The search for matching electronics has primarily been about covering up other weaknesses (speakers/room), unaware of that of course. But there are a number of enthusiasts who allow themselves to be seduced by components with, in some cases, have a striking amount of distortion (own sound - colored sound). Especially if it comes with a high price tag.

Many people like a certain type of distortion and their accustomed “own sound”, so it will be hard to find an agreement on that, but rest assured that if there is an objective fault with a hifi product, it is never the reason why something sounds good.

Hi,

I specifically stated that the mention of tubes/analog in his quote was besides the point.

All components have "faults"! So when you say,

"- An amplifier should amplify the signal without changing it.

- A component that adds distortion is an "effects box". I prefer using EQ."

...you are living in a dream world...

This world of yours is build on the idea that levels of distortion measured in a lab with test signals are adequate to determine auditability levels.

This has been argued so many times before. Are you bringing something new to this discussion? I don't think so.

Rather than go on a crusade against audiophiles, just show some confidence that your work will speak for itself and have others listen to it and provide their feedback!

 

I think that most people in this hobby probably haven't heard a objectively good measuring system in a good room, with the capacity for a realistic sound reproduction.

That so many people deny, the laws that apply is a mystery to me. The same methods are used in everything that is made, and we are dependent on these laws being reliable. The same laws are used in everything that is made with electronics. If we couldn't rely on these laws, we couldn't use mass production as we couldn't rely on the next item in the series being the same as the previous one.

So no, there is no magic in audio and our understanding of audio, both the reproduction chain and the human perceiving mechanism, is pretty much full circle. Please give me some examples of what we experience/hear in audio, that can't be explained.

No, it is up to you to prove your point and organize listening sessions /demos of your system!

 

This world of yours is build on the idea that levels of distortion measured in a lab with test signals are adequate to determine auditability levels.

I agree, we can't make a perfect measurable hifi component, but I believe that we can make it good enough, so that the human ear can't distinguish between them.

 

Rather than go on a crusade against audiophiles, just show some confidence that your work will speak for itself and have others listen to it and provide their feedback!

And many people have and according to their feedback my "confidence" in my objective approach should be quite strong. And the funny thing is that it lines up pretty well, with what I hear at other peoples systems, with a similar approach. I am talking about in the vicinity of 10 private systems in very different rooms, but all using active speakers, separate subwoofers, EQ, dispersion controlled speakers, room acoustics. None uses tube amps but quite a lot of class D and PA designs, none cares about cables as long as they are "good enough" and does the job. To my ears these systems sound more correct, natural and realistic, than what I normally hear at peoples homes or at shows. But hey, that is just my subjective opinion Peace.

 

without a more thoroughly approach (read measurements) on why something sounded good or bad, all bets are off. Often the need for electronics with a lot of distortion, comes into play when the response is too much off into the woods, or there are other weaknesses to which the ears are sensitive.

I agree, and that is entirely the point. I don't thing we're necessarily on track to get more and better measurements and most important, a way to square them with our experience.

That so many people deny, the laws that apply is a mystery to me. The same methods are used in everything that is made, and we are dependent on these laws being reliable. The same laws are used in everything that is made with electronics. If we couldn't rely on these laws, we couldn't use mass production as we couldn't rely on the next item in the series being the same as the previous one.

So no, there is no magic in audio and our understanding of audio, both the reproduction chain and the human perceiving mechanism, is pretty much full circle. Please give me some examples of what we experience/hear in audio, that can't be explained.

Again, I agree, there is no black magic. But that is not to say there are no unknowns. My positive experience (that I seem to share with a lot of other people given the reporting) listening to clearly flawed systems indicates there is more to be known than you seem to care to admit at the moment. The relatively low correlation factors of the preference studies point in the same direction. I know it is a hard pill to swallow, to be faced with our ignorance once we go past a certain point of knowledge. Alas it is the alfa and omega point for scientific process, and progress. It is not negotiable.

I'd be a lot more interested in following the thread topic and continuing to explore synergy horns than continuing down this generic and repetitive discussion!

 

My positive experience (that I seem to share with a lot of other people given the reporting) listening to clearly flawed systems indicates there is more to be known than you seem to care to admit at the moment. The relatively low correlation factors of the preference studies point in the same direction. I know it is a hard pill to swallow, to be faced with our ignorance once we go past a certain point of knowledge.

Funny, I find it to be the complete opposite. Clearly flawed systems never sound really good to me. I can "accept" some 2. and 3. order harmonic distortion, as they are pretty much ear friendly. But gross frequency response deviations just sound wrong to me. Put a car with extraordinary good driving capabilities on a bumpy road. It will never be a nice smooth drive, maybe a funny one for little a while.

Preferences, for me, are not about what kind of sound you like. It's about what kind of flaws you can live with. And I will try to diminish every flaw I find in my search for better sound. Measurements helps a bunch in that regard. With a sound and logic approach these flaws will be small to begin with.

Unfortunately, I am too analytical to accept that chance should prevail over my hobby, but I see and understand the charm in testing countless variations and combinations of gear. It is, for me, just not a logical and efficient way to get to the goal, when it comes to the desire to get even better sound.

 

Anyone who plays with audio at home should watch this video and take in what this guy is talking about. Disclaimer, dispersion and frequency response are essential topics.

He has done several listening test and practical experiments under controlled conditions that we can only dream of. The conclusions from these experiments are well explained in this video and not unexpectedly the evidence is in line with what one would expect, using common sense.
Be aware, he only talks about cables for 3 seconds during 73 minutes

"Spice" put in the original signal and different "unknown things we don't understand" have been mentioned in this thread, but the conclusion from Toole and all his blind tests with 350 different listeners are clear. Neutrality wins.

hopkins, Tool also talks about resonances in speakers and how we can see them using measurements.

 

If you choose exclusively neutral electronics, it will fit optimally with a neutral speaker. You will then end up with a result, that there will be considerable consensus around that sounds excellent. This will also be a set-up that gives an exceptionally good insight into the recordings and even though it makes almost everything flow through with all the conviction, dynamics and drama one might find in the recordings, it is also on such a set-up that it is the easiest to recognize the various differences in the recordings. It is on such a set-up that it is easiest to distinguish different types of instruments from one another (ie, the same instrument class, but different brands, models, etc.).

For me, it's therefore a bit like that, if I hear 2-3 songs that sound fantastic on a set-up, I'm very curious about what that set-up delivers if you move in slightly different directions and try recordings of a completely different nature. It is only then that you discover whether the system is a little extra "sweetened" for a handful of recordings. Some setups are extreme on that. Some are completely free of this, and the vast majority of setups are on a scale somewhere between the extremes.

But quite frankly, I don't think anyone deep down wants such a "signature" in the sound. This is probably also a large part of the explanation for why so many judge certain recordings to be bad sounding.

 

Let's say that the following is assumed:

Significant harmonic distortion increases speech intelligibility, improves definition of time references in the sound image. On the other hand gross dispersion errors create disturbances and an unbalanced sound energy that degrade speech intelligibility, smear time references in time, and mask decay. Loudspeakers with limited dynamic characteristics also mask the same factors. No EQ is used in the two scenarios.

Scenario 1:
You build a setup with an amplifier that distorts well below the limit for audible distortion. You have control over the speaker directivity, which is also limited. The speakers have good dynamics and very low distortion. You also have good control over the acoustics.

Result:
It sounds amazingly good and a large majority of those who hear the set-up will easily agree that this sounds fantastic. This is also, what you find in the control rooms of the very best studios around the world.

Scenario 2:
You build a set-up with speakers that struggle with an untidy dispersion pattern. If placed close to various surfaces in the room you get a series of unfortunate reflections that are far from linear in frequency. This reflection energy constitutes a much greater proportion of the total sound energy than in the 1. scenario, and the spectrum sound distribution for the reflected sound is of an unfriendly nature with a focus on frequencies from 2-5kHz. Frequencies above 5kHz, where a significant part of the time information is located, are underrepresented in the total energy, and the time domain generally does not look good.

The ears do not hear weak sounds immediately after a strong sound. These weaker sounds must have a certain duration in order to be perceived them. This is expressed through the Gaussian masking curve. So loudspeakers with limited dynamic properties and that spread a lot of energy over time and create a non-harmonic reverberation image that lies far outside the Gaussian masking curve. You connect an amplifier with quite a lot of harmonic distortion in the setup.

Result:
You get more spectrum information because of the amplifier, and it becomes easier to perceive time information. It also becomes easier to hear reverberation. The sound is experienced as significantly more natural than if you put a neutral amplifier into the same setup. Most people would also identify this as a good sounding set-up, but here there would be far more caveats. Experienced listeners, preferably those who work in a studio on a daily basis, will think that this sounds appealing, but not right. Recordings sound more similar, a bit like always using the same spices in food. It does not have the same positive effect on all raw materials, even if the food would be experienced as tame without spices.

What if we switch?
What if we take the amplifier from scenario 2 and insert it into setup 1? Are we getting better sound? Are we getting more appealing sound? No, believe me, I've tried this. When the basic things are in place, this is like smearing your whole body in perfume before going on a date. No one finds it appealing. You will probably immediately react to noise, distortion that masks the space in the sound, dynamics that cannot be released, bass that seems grounded in a duffel bag, treble that feels intrusive and at the same time a bit dull. Some of the effects are subtle, but nothing will turn out in a positive way.

This is not an argument that one amplifier is better than the other, unless one establishes a definition. Still, there is an argument to the contrary. It is because the neutral amplifier will also make the set-up in scenario 2 sound subjectively clearly worse. So what's the point?

It's as simple as getting the very best sound with a neutral amplifier, provided you also have control over everything else. In many cases, you will get a better sound with the amplifier from scenario 2, but you will still not reach the sound quality level in scenario 1.

Therefore, it would be wrong to say that the amplifier from scenario 2 sounds more natural than the amplifier from scenario 1. One could go so far as to say that it is the other way around, that the amplifier from scenario 1 sounds more natural than the amplifier from scenario 2, but with the fact that in many setups this is simply not true, that argument is also a "long shot".

In my book, there is no doubt as to which is the overall best amplifier, but at the same time I have no problems either, understanding why the amplifier from scenario 2 plays a legitimate role in the hi-fi market. I can also enjoy music over such a set up. However, for me, this hobby is also about looking even further and dig deeper. Fortunately, the hobby does not stop me from enjoying music along the way.

 

Reviewer Robert E. Greene, is actually one of the few reviewers, worth listening to (in my ears )
Listen what he has to say about EQ.

"If you have lived only in the ultra-purist high-end world of no user-controllable EQ, you will certainly find the Loki an educational experience. You will make a significant step towards understanding how audio actually works and how humans actually perceive sound."

His review of the intro equalizer model from Shiit is mandatory reading for audio purist (and everybody else for that matter). Have fun.

Schiit Audio Loki Mini Equalizer - The Absolute Sound

Schiit Audio Loki Mini Equalizer - Robert E. Greene contends that every music lover should have an equalizer—especially at the Loki Mini’s $149 price.

www.theabsolutesound.com

 

Anyone who plays with audio at home should watch this video and take in what this guy is talking about. Disclaimer, dispersion and frequency response are essential topics.

He has done several listening test and practical experiments under controlled conditions that we can only dream of. The conclusions from these experiments are well explained in this video and not unexpectedly the evidence is in line with what one would expect, using common sense.
Be aware, he only talks about cables for 3 seconds during 73 minutes

"Spice" put in the original signal and different "unknown things we don't understand" have been mentioned in this thread, but the conclusion from Toole and all his blind tests with 350 different listeners are clear. Neutrality wins.

hopkins, Tool also talks about resonances in speakers and how we can see them using measurements.

I will not watch the video, but I have read the book. An extremely interesting book, the first half (Understanding the Principles) is mandatory to anyone seriously interested in stereo sound reproduction. Part two (Designing Listening Experiences) is less interesting to audiophiles in WBF, as F. Toole main work disregards the essence of the high-end - the preferences of small groups - in order to create his models. So many of his findings do not apply to our systems.

If any one has doubts on it, his clearly expressed preference for multichannel audio over stereo makes it evident.

 

Yes, Toole is mandatory in terms of understanding speaker design and sound in a room. Not so strong on DSP and what is possible with EQ, but that is not his field either, so won't hold it against him

What is the "essence of the high-end"? Guess I never got my head around that segment. Maybe my analytical brain prevents me from "understanding".