# High efficiency hi-fi speakers, DIY suggestions?



## Guest

After taking a closer look on Klipsch, I'd really like to build my own speakers with efficiency over 95db/1w, but can't find any kits or suggestions... Klipsch is really overpriced here in Norway, RF82 cost 1850 US dollars.. My goal is a speaker not (much) bigger than the rf82, but as loud and with the same hifi-quality. I'm a bit suprised that the web isn't flooded with DIY-kits like that, am I the only one that wants to play loud, without monster amps or monster speakers, or is Klipsch making "unbeatable" speakers? Like the aspect of DIY, and would like to save some money too. 

Sorry if the title is misleading or anything, I'm not used to writing in english.:hide:


----------



## Anthony

More people will chime in here, but as far as that efficiency goes, you basically have two choices:

Line array
Prosound drivers

I know there are people who build custom folded horns and some horn kits (Pi audio comes to mind), but those are most popular.

I have a pair of Eminence 10" woofers with a coaxial tweeter that are around 95dB, if I remember right. It was an Adire audio kit a while back, but the parts are still available. I am driving them with 8W tube amps.

I am not as familiar with line arrays, but they seem popular in the DIY community, so maybe someone with more experience there will respond.

Good luck and welcome to the shack!


----------



## WmAx

Pirium said:


> After taking a closer look on Klipsch, I'd really like to build my own speakers with efficiency over 95db/1w, but can't find any kits or suggestions...


1st, I think you need to re-examine why you want to build something like the Klipsche. Klipsche units do not measure or behave as a known high fidelity speaker should, according to the current perceptual research in the realm of loudspeaker systems.

If it is simply 'loud and clear' that you want, listen to DS-21. The pro sound drivers will get LOUD with low distortion with low power and you can manage decent fidelity with a very careful design.

You can achieve loud and very high-fidelity together, but this usually requires very high power amplifier and high quality drivers with very linear motor systems.

I guess it comes down which one of these following circumstances fits you best:

*Are you one to sit in a dark room concentrating on the music?*

If so, I would gravitate towards pointing you to the high-power, conventional speaker system design method.

*Are you one to listen to music usually in a casual mood, while doing something else, and you want the ultimate party speaker?
*
If so, I would gravitate towards pointing you to the high-efficiency pro driver speaker system design method.

BTW, regardless of which method you prefer to choose, I recommend building a known good quality design that is published. It is no simple feat to design/engineer a high fidelity speaker system without a substantial amount of study/research/experimentation.

-Chris


----------



## Guest

WmAx said:


> 1st, I think you need to re-examine why you want to build something like the Klipsche. Klipsche units do not measure or behave as a known high fidelity speaker should, according to the current perceptual research in the realm of loudspeaker systems.
> 
> If it is simply 'loud and clear' that you want, listen to DS-21. The pro sound drivers will get LOUD with low distortion with low power and you can manage decent fidelity with a very careful design.
> 
> You can achieve loud and very high-fidelity together, but this usually requires very high power amplifier and high quality drivers with very linear motor systems.
> 
> I guess it comes down which one of these following circumstances fits you best:
> 
> *Are you one to sit in a dark room concentrating on the music?*
> 
> If so, I would gravitate towards pointing you to the high-power, conventional speaker system design method.
> 
> *Are you one to listen to music usually in a casual mood, while doing something else, and you want the ultimate party speaker?
> *
> If so, I would gravitate towards pointing you to the high-efficiency pro driver speaker system design method.
> 
> BTW, regardless of which method you prefer to choose, I recommend building a known good quality design that is published. It is no simple feat to design/engineer a high fidelity speaker system without a substantial amount of study/research/experimentation.
> 
> -Chris


Guess I'm more of a casual mood guy, but my music taste is very wide, I'd like something which would perform good on most types of music. Good being as good or better than ie RF82, which gets very good critics here in Norway. 
I got the space for big speakers, got my own HT-room in a while. Could mention that I'm going with separate subs, so the mains don't have to do much below say 35-40hz. Most important is good sound, capable of playing loud with low distortion, drivven by ie Onkyo 875, which is the most likely reciever to be used.


----------



## WmAx

DS-21 said:


> While the second point is undoubtedly true, and it makes the bigger stuff look that much better, because it's operating so far under its limits at any non-dangerous SPL.
> 
> However, really high power isn't really required. Keep in mind that a 96dB/w/m speaker will have identical SPLmax to a typical 86dB/w/m 7" 2-way bookshelf with 1/10 the power. So if 700W are needed to meet one's SPL needs from the latter, 70 will suffice for the former. And of course, the 96dB/w/m system will be far more linear at those SPL, with less power compression, etc.


I typically target a 90db minimum sensitivity range. The problem is that not many mid band drivers with the most desirable CSD and axial radiation patterns combined will be very high sensetivity. But no worries, modern good quality drivers have far more than sufficient linearity vs. spl to be used for high fidelity situations, when used in an intelligent design.

-Chris


----------



## thxgoon

DS-21 said:


> And of course, the 96dB/w/m system will be far more linear at those SPL, with less power compression, etc.


This is the 2nd time I've seen you reference this and I'm curious to how sensitivity relates to compression? (given that sufficient amp power is available) Is it a thermal issue or is there anything else involved?

OP: What was it about the Klipsch's that you like?


----------



## WmAx

thxgoon said:


> This is the 2nd time I've seen you reference this and I'm curious to how sensitivity relates to compression? (given that sufficient amp power is available) Is it a thermal issue or is there anything else involved?
> 
> OP: What was it about the Klipsch's that you like?


Usually, in regards to high sensitivity drivers, this is a function of lower mass vs. a given radiation area. Assuming you have two drivers with equivalent voice coils and motors, and one has a cone mass of 2x compare to the other, the lower mass cone will be able to have greater movement for a given energy input. Every voice coil is subject to power compression at some point- where the coil heats up and becomes more resistive. Given all other factors equal(for theoretical discussion), the lower mass version in this example will reach a higher SPL before the compression sets in at any given ratio, compared to the higher mass cone variant. With pro sound applications, maximizing SPL vs. power input is critical in importance, due to the huge areas required to be filled with high SPLs. For home use, this is not an issue, as any good quality conventinal drivers of average sensitivity can produce very high SPLs in a regular environment before appreciable compression becomes an issue. At least, that is true with a proper/intelligent design. You will need substantially higher power, though. So you might wonder: why ever use lower sensitivity drivers? Simply put, the above was based on 'all else being equal'. Most often, all else is never equal. Many of the more desirable characteristics for a specific target design/objective may only commonly be found with relatively higher mass designs. Let's take woofer as an example: a pro sound woofer may typically have a substantially higher sensitivity, as compared to a conventional high power subwoofer. The reason is it has a lower mass cone and surround, and is designed primarily for higher frequency ranges(usually 40hz and over) and lower excursion levels, which all adds up to typically higher sensitivity. While this unit may be superb for this upper bandwidth, it would not fair well in the commonly desired applications of HT enthusiasts today that want very high SPL response at 20hz or even lower ranges. This bandwidth requires a higher mass driver with lower FS and far greater excursion capabilities. This is just one example, as applied to LF drivers.

-Chris


----------



## Rodny Alvarez

You said you want high Sensitivity:devil:..................here some drivers













605Nd

This 6.5” mid frequency loudspeaker has been designed on the basis of the 6MI90 with the purpose of improving the efficiency. The new one includes a high-energy neodymium magnet that increases it and reduces the loudspeaker net weight. Thus, the 605Nd is 3 dB louder and 30% lighter than the ferrite version. By the other hand, this loudspeaker is mounted with an special cast aluminium basket that reduces mechanical vibrations and increases thermal dissipation. All these improvements combined with the 6MI90 excellences (low harmonic distortion and extended frequency response), result in a superb transducer for sound reinforcement applications.

Key Features

- Exceptional power handling: 125 w AES
- High sensitivity: 100 dB
- 1.5” (38.5 mm) edgewound aluminium ribbon voice coil
- Aluminium basket
- High efficiency: 3.3 %
- Excellent dispersion control due to the use of a phase plug
- Low harmonic distortion
- Linear frequency response


Technical specifications
Nominal diameter 165 mm. 6.5 in
Rated impedance 8 ohms.
Minimum impedance 6.6 ohms.
Power capacity 125 w AES
Program power 250 w
Sensitivity 100 dB 2.82v @ 1m @ 2pi
Frequency range 150-8000 Hz
Voice coil diameter 38.5 mm. 1.5 in
Magnetic assembly weight 1.2 kg. 2.65 lb.
BL Factor 13.15 N/A
Moving mass 0.010 kg.
Voice coil length 7 mm.
Air gap height 6 mm.









CP22

This compression tweeter is designed for use in multi-element loudspeaker systems in sound reinforcement applications that require high output, narrow controlled dispersion and long throw. This model produces a very high output level with flat response and excellent transient attack. This unit features an aluminium voice coil diaphragm assembly, which is field replaceable without soldering.

Key Features
- 1.5” (37.6 mm) edgewound aluminium ribbon voice coil
- Great power handling: 25 w AES
- Aluminium diaphragm
- Precise directivity: 40º conical
- High sensitivity : 107 dB
- Compression tweeter designed for long-throw high frequency applications.

Technical Specifications
Rated impedance 8 ohms.
Minimum impedance 8.5 [email protected] 9 kHz
D.C. Resistance 6.1 ohms.
Power capacity 25 w AES
Program Power 50 w
Sensitivity 107 dB 1w @ 1m
Frequency range 4 - 20 kHz
Recommended crossover 5 kHz or higher
Dispersion H x V 40° conical
Voice coil diameter 37.6 mm. 1.5 in.
Magnetic assembly weight 1.2 kg. 2.64 Ib.
Flux density 1.55 T
BL Factor 5.2 N/A


I think they have some crossovers:bigsmile: 


http://profesional.beyma.com/ENGLISH/producto.php


----------



## thxgoon

DS-21 said:


> Completely, utterly wrong. Take some measurements before and after playing a 94dB pink noise signal on a typical domestic speaker for an hour. It'll open your eyes.


Does it really take an hour? If so this issue seems relatively moot. Voice coils are relatively light and are made of conductive metal (ie conductive to heat) so it shouldn't take more than a few seconds for it to heat up with a given input power.

Do you have any further info, preferably graphs and numbers, that would show just how much compression sets in at a given temp? I've had my system (last night as a matter of fact, watching concert dvd's with the roomies I actually managed to put my amp in thermal protection, whoops!) _loud_ for hours on end and the only thing I noticed different about the sound had more to do with my ears getting tired than my speakers getting tired.

Hey I realized in my little story telling a benefit to the OP of a higher efficiency design... the amp works less hard and you don't have as much chance of sending it into protection and you can party for longer! Ha! I knew I could keep this on topic


----------



## Guest

thxgoon said:


> OP: What was it about the Klipsch's that you like?


I like that they can play LOUD from "small" speakers, and still be good music-performers. I like the dynamic range, the "drive" they put in to music, to put it simple, i like the sound they make. 

I also like the idea of playing at reference level without stressing the amp.

My use is mostly HT, but I play a lot of music too, and since I soon got my own HT-room, I'd like to be able to play loud without "destroying" the sound.


----------



## Guest

Rodny Alvarez said:


> You said you want high Sensitivity:devil:..................here some drivers
> 
> 
> 
> 
> View attachment 5947
> 
> 
> 
> 605Nd
> 
> 
> Technical specifications
> Nominal diameter 165 mm. 6.5 in
> Rated impedance 8 ohms.
> Minimum impedance 6.6 ohms.
> Power capacity 125 w AES
> Program power 250 w
> Sensitivity 100 dB 2.82v @ 1m @ 2pi
> Frequency range 150-8000 Hz
> Voice coil diameter 38.5 mm. 1.5 in
> Magnetic assembly weight 1.2 kg. 2.65 lb.
> BL Factor 13.15 N/A
> Moving mass 0.010 kg.
> Voice coil length 7 mm.
> Air gap height 6 mm.
> 
> View attachment 5948
> 
> 
> CP22
> 
> 
> Technical Specifications
> Rated impedance 8 ohms.
> Minimum impedance 8.5 [email protected] 9 kHz
> D.C. Resistance 6.1 ohms.
> Power capacity 25 w AES
> Program Power 50 w
> Sensitivity 107 dB 1w @ 1m
> Frequency range 4 - 20 kHz
> Recommended crossover 5 kHz or higher
> Dispersion H x V 40° conical
> Voice coil diameter 37.6 mm. 1.5 in.
> Magnetic assembly weight 1.2 kg. 2.64 Ib.
> Flux density 1.55 T
> BL Factor 5.2 N/A



Nice drivers, just need som woofers to go with that.  Would like a bit more excursion on the mid, though..


----------



## justin.kerr

I have Klipsch Rf 83's, and I don't think it would be very hard to build speakers that would match them for output/sound quality. 
I am also looking for a 5.0 set up. With high sensitivy, and high power handling, coupled with great sound. What I am looking for is around 102db-106db for sensitivity, and around 4,000 watts continous power handling per speaker. But it looks like the cost of just the drivers will be around $3,000. per speaker... :crying:


----------



## WmAx

DS-21 said:


> Completely, utterly wrong. Take some measurements before and after playing a 94dB pink noise signal on a typical domestic speaker for an hour. It'll open your eyes.
> 
> 
> 
> Which will only lead to more power compression.


1. A _constant_ high power signal such as pink noise is not an exact representation of the power use in music, since music is not constant. If you wanted precise values in a specific situation, you could actually use actual music and record a song, and then re-record it at another SPL level, and examine the precise compresssion differences in the peak sections of the signals after synching them later in software.

2. 94dB is a very high average SPL for music playback. Yet, playing music at this average level with 90dB range average drivers with good quality motors will result in marginal compression at best. Barely noticed on a measurement.

Let's assume we take a single channel of an average sensivity 89-90dB speaker system measured, 6.5" driver and dome tweeter with decent motors, using this set down to about 80Hz(assuming active crossovers are switching over to subs by this point). With an averaged sweep at say 96db at 1 meter, vs. an averaged sweep at 101dB(4x power) at 1 meter, one could expect less than a dB of compression difference between the two in the lower band(<200Hz), and far less than 1/2 of a dB at in the higher band(>200Hz), with averageed distortion at inaudible levels for music playback. A sweep will probably be more representative of the kind of power to be expected in music, and still, likely more demanding, depending on the time of the sweep.

This is not any level of compression that is substantial.

The above scenario assumes averages of real measured devices in the conditions as outlined. The above scenario would be representative of extremely high music listening levels - ear damaging levels.

-Chris


----------



## justin.kerr

Depending on room size, and listening position, that scenario could deliver 85db to the listener, that is not extreme, ear damaging levels.


----------



## WmAx

justin.kerr said:


> Depending on room size, and listening position, that scenario could deliver 85db to the listener, that is not extreme, ear damaging levels.


That is one speaker, measured in anechoic conditions. You add 3-4dB roughly, to account for a second unit. Then you account for room/boundary reflections reducing distance losses. In an average room, the final output of 2 speakers, at an average listening distance of 2 meters would be in roughly in the same general SPL vs. power range as the 1 meter measurement of a single speaker, minus 2-3dB on average. The upper SPL example given above would still result in nearly 100dB, given all of these conditions. The upper example above demonstrating compression difference uses sine wave sweeps that heat up the VC, not quick transient signals which do not. Transients peaking at 110dB for short durations would not cause much additional thermal compression, as the transients are too short in duration to heat the VC by a further substantial degree.

I have yet to come across a properly designed/implemented system of average sensitivity(90dB 1 watt/1meter average) with good driver motors that had what could be considered an audible problem due to compression for commercial music playback in regular room conditions when used with the appropriate subwoofer system and crossover. But by the way the DS21 poster is wording his posts, one could erronously assume that this was the case.

-Chris


----------



## justin.kerr

Thats a very close listening position. 
Also OSHA ratings are established A-weighted. There are not many speakers capable of 105 db at 20 hz, A-weighted.
For 1 hour, continuous 105 db is safe.
Short "blasts" up to 140 db safe, according to U.S. Military Standard 1474D.


----------



## thxgoon

Ok guys (and/or gals) I think we're splitting hairs and getting a bit far off topic. 

Pirium, I understand why you like the Klipsch sound as I've never heard anything else quite like them. Unfortunately I do not have much experience in the DIY world for speakers so I can't comment much on building something like them. Line arrays have the added benefit of dramatically higher efficiency and higher power handling... this might be a solution???


----------



## WmAx

justin.kerr said:


> That a very close listening position.
> Also OSHA ratings are established A-weighted. There are not many speakers capable of 105 db at 20 hz, A-weighted. For 1 hour continuous 105 db is safe. Short "blasts" up to 140 db safe, according to U.S. Military Standard 1474D.


I was not trying to specifically establish hearing safety limits. I was trying o relate to the substantial level that such a SPL equates to in full range use. At about 3 meters (9-10') distance (which I consider a very average for average situations when listening critically), only a dB or 2 of additional loss would occur in a regular room. But as a side issue concerning safety, how long does one listen to music? That's needs to be decided. At 96-99dB, which is extremely loud, and a figure which a high quality average sensitivity speaker set can manage with no substantial compression problems, given a sufficient power amplifier, 4-5 hours is the maximum limit of safety, accumulated in a 24 hour period. Now, if someone actually intends to play music over 100dB averaged on a regular basis, I would in fact recommend that they use high efficiency drivers, or a line array of regular drivers. Sound quality is probably not the highest priority anyways, assuming this condition. Let's put this into perspective: the average classical music performance has an average SPL well below 90dB. Only peaks are over 100dB, and transient peaks do not cause substantial compression. I would speculate that most people, when they are in a mood for short term 'rocking out' at high SPL, do not exceed an averaged energy SPL resulting in greater than 100dB at the listening position, unless they have pre-existing substantial hearing damage.

-Chris


----------



## justin.kerr

I have found that loudness is completely subjective. To one 150db is loud, to another 80db is loud. When I am "rocking out" lol, the db meter averages around 125-130, and I am looking to upgrade. lol


----------



## WmAx

justin.kerr said:


> I have found that loudness is completely subjective. To one 150db is loud, to another 80db is loud. When I am "rocking out" lol, the db meter averages around 125-130, and I am looking to upgrade. lol


Exactly what does this refer to? The mid/treble band? Or a power car subwoofer system run at much higher SPL level compared to the mid/treble band?

125-130 dB in bass is easily tolerable. 125-130dB range in mid/treble band can _rapidly_ cause hearing damage and I would speculate is probably considered extremely painful by most people with regular hearing after a short period.

Virtually no home system can run averaged SPLs in that range, in the mid-treble bands. In order to do this practically, one may as well install pro-sound re-enforcement speaker systems in their house using high powered compression drivers and large high efficiency woofer mid-bass systems, along with an array of horn subs against the wall. Dare to use it at those SPLs on a regular basis and one can expect to find themselves with severe tinnitus eventually, and severely deficient HF hearing.

-Chris


----------



## thxgoon

justin.kerr said:


> I have found that loudness is completely subjective. To one 150db is loud, to another 80db is loud. When I am "rocking out" lol, the db meter averages around 125-130, and I am looking to upgrade. lol


If that is the case you have got to post some pics of your system. Only one I can think of could maybe come close and that's the old Polk SRT system.. Like WmAx said, you won't be rocking at those levels for long.

The SRT system was a line array btw...


----------



## WmAx

DS-21 said:


> The summary, from memory, would be that the NS3-based speaker and the Q-Compact (5.25" Uni-Q) suffered immensely.


The NS3 hardly qualifies as average sensitivity, at about 80db/1m/1watt. The Q compact, I have no clue of the motor quality, but assuming it is not used under 100-120 Hz, and with it's sensitivity, and assuming a good motor, there is no reason to presume any substantial compression within the scope I specified earlier.



> Even the 8" Tannoy dual concentric suffered a bit. On the 12" dual concentric, there was not enough of a difference to be able to rule out subtle differences in alignment between speaker and mic as the cause.


With the 8" unit, assuming using it above 70-80Hz, again, I would expect no appreciable compression within the scope I specified earlier.

Here is a sweep of a single Ascend CBM=170 in anechoic conditions at 90 dB at 2 meters(= 96dB at 1 meter) and 95dB at 2 meters(= 101dB at 1 meter). This is a commercially available speaker with about 89 db/1 watt/1meter sensitivity and good quality driver motors. Compression is within about the limits that are to be expected, and which are not going to result in any substantial compression in the uses I have carefully outlined in previous posts.










-Chris


----------



## JCD

Trying to get back to the OP's purpose for this thread..

I think you've only got two "real" choices for a DIY design that has hi-sensitivity that's going to sound good. One, you go with some horn based design (ala Klipsch) or you go with a Line Array. Zalytron.com has a handful of line array designs on their website, but I'm unaware of if those drivers would be available to someone in Norway.

That being said, a horn based design I think would give you the design you're really looking for. Those are exceedingly difficult to design from what I've heard.. and I haven't seen any DIY horn based designs other than some sort of folded horn design -- which I wouldn't normally suggest for what you're looking for.

Not much help I'm sure..

Good luck.

JCD


----------



## WmAx

DS-21 said:


> You do realize that a single sweep is entirely different from playing signal over time, right?


A VC heats rather quickly, and a sweep is a very good compromise for compression testing. But a band limited(cutting off above the range I specified) pink noise signal, for 10 seconds, would reveal near identical results.



> And I would argue that the lower midrange power compression would be clearly audible on passages with lots of massed strings or lush choral sections. Moreover, the measurements posted say nothing about rise in other distortion products.


What is your evidence that is audible? I have created and tested compression ratios on blinded testing studies, and 1dB in a narrow window like this is very very difficult to hear. About as relevant as a transient perfect speaker design; that is, not very. In addition, the levels here are pretty high -- in a room with two of these speakers, the listen position SPL would be almost the same as the 1 M SPL of one speaker. that is in the upper 90's SPL range. Very high SPL for constant averaged use in normal situations. Most classical music in a real performance at audience position is in the 8xdB range, barring the mass movements, which rise to mid 90s, and on short peaks, barely exceeding 100dB. Now, if you intend to play averaged RMS values of 100dB or more at mid-field or far-field distances, then look for some other type of speaker that is high efficiency or with many redundant drivers(line array).

The speaker example given has acceptable distortion changes in the SPL range noted, but the issue here is compression, there for it is the data I provided.

-Chris


----------



## thxgoon

DS-21 said:


> I'd have to see measurements to begin to believe that.


Which part? How quickly it heats up or the testing method to determine compression? As far as heating up that can be easily calculated (I'll do it later if you really need me to but it's dependent on the mass of the VC) and they do heat up quickly. Not a lot of mass + a lot of power.

What other testing method would you use to determine compression. Do you have any evidence to the contrary?



> You _really_ don't think that a 1dB change over _more than an octave_ of the lower midrange would not be audible?


I'm with WyAx on this one. From pro audio experience with band limited compressors when the first -1db light lights up there is no noticeable difference in the sound. You have a mac, assumably garageband. Import your favorite recording and set a band limited compressor approximate WmAx's graph and send the audio to your system via optical out. Have someone else switch it on and off and see if you can hear a difference.


----------



## justin.kerr

thxgoon said:


> If that is the case you have got to post some pics of your system. Only one I can think of could maybe come close and that's the old Polk SRT system.. Like WmAx said, you won't be rocking at those levels for long.
> 
> The SRT system was a line array btw...


I have posted pictures, 8 18's in a small room produce a decent amount of spl. :hsd: My mids and highs are around 10 db under the bass.. for now. :R


----------



## Guest

thylantyr said:


> It won't take much from a DIY point of view to have great sound. You probably don't need
> a high sensitivity design to meet your goals. Take a good DIY design and connect it to a generous
> power amplifier and you are doing well. Klipsch isn't going to put high end drivers in their commercial
> speakers. Most likely, they use $1 dollar tweeters mated to a horn lense to give it the SPL because
> the driver itself it weak.
> 
> 
> 
> If you wanted a good high sensitivity loudspeaker, some ideas are given in that link. Did you read it?




Of course I did.  Gave me a lot of Ideas, but I'd like to be able to use the same drivers in a center speaker as well, so I'd really like a dual 8" or 6" plus tweeter design.





thylantyr said:


> As already mentioned, everyone has different SPL goals. Someone like me with high SPL, high SQ
> as my main goal, won't use the conventional high quality drivers seen in the common DIY loudspeaker.
> The only exception is when you make a proper line array as you can have ordinary drivers in
> an array and not drive them to audible distortion, but the array 'effect' can boosts the SPL level
> with proper design of course.
> 
> 
> 
> There are prerequisites to DIY.. Time, money, and you need to know what you want and analyze
> designs to determine if they get you there. If you are just a casual listener who loves higher
> SPL audio and auditioned the Klipsch and found them to be what you want, then just buy it
> in spite that it cost a lot of money. For one, you can't audition a DIY speaker unless you plan to
> take trips to people's homes. A DIY design unheard, is considered gambling. You have faith that
> the design will satisfy, but there is no guarantees. Do you want to gamble or play it safe ?




I've gambled and won before, why not gamble once more? 


What about something like two of these in paralell; http://www.mamut.net/dynabel/peerless_pe3225_hds_ppb_205_-_830868.pdf

Or it's phaseplugged brother: http://www.mamut.net/dynabel/peerless_pe3257_hds_exclusive_205_-_830884.pdf

with this tweeter:http://www.madisound.com/catalog/PDF/neocd2.pdf

Could that be a good startingpoint,and why/not?


----------



## Geoff St. Germain

I didn't see this one posted, but it hits 95 dB/2.8 V.

http://www.troelsgravesen.dk/JA8008.htm


----------



## Guest

That one is really interesting. When he comes up with a matching 10-12'' and filter for the double horn, I think this could be what I'm looking for. I tried to follow all the links,but still haven't found anyone actually selling this kit..?


----------



## zamboniman

DS-21
You mentioned having a crossover design for the B&C coax a few posts back. Would you be willing to share that?

Thanks


----------



## ajaxmike

Have a look at hempacoustics.com. High efficiency full range drivers with enclosure plans available on the net. Dealers in Germany and Netherlands.

Mike


----------



## kouack

justin.kerr said:


> I have Klipsch Rf 83's, and I don't think it would be very hard to build speakers that would match them for output/sound quality.
> I am also looking for a 5.0 set up. With high sensitivy, and high power handling, coupled with great sound. What I am looking for is around 102db-106db for sensitivity, and around 4,000 watts continous power handling per speaker. But it looks like the cost of just the drivers will be around $3,000. per speaker... :crying:


Continuous 4000 watts speakers are you planing to gig or build a movie theater ? this is good for a 4000 watts amp IE Crown Itech 4000 bridged on a speaker :coocoo:


----------



## kouack

Quote `Very true, it's not common to see someone producing 125dB - 130dB of mid/treble in their home.
It's one of my goals, I have collected drivers for this. It will be a line array and no horns. The midbass
will probably do 140dB. This is a rough estimate of course.

140db according to this calculator http://www.crownaudio.com/apps_htm/designtools/elect-pwr-req.htm we are talking about 20k watts at 6 feet from the speakers with a headroom of 3 db and 106 db/watts speaker.


----------



## Synthsayer

Check out this thres if you want to find some good info on high efficiency drivers and systems.
http://www.hometheatershack.com/forums/diy-speakers/10240-compression-drivers-new-post.html 
In my humlbe opinion horns and compression drivers give you dynamics and efficiency that no high power amps and dynamic cone and dome systems can achieve.
I don't mean to antagonize anybody so please do not take this posting as an insult to the very nice systems I see mentioned here 
Peace


----------



## oddness

What I'm currently using for my mains & center channel is a 2.8cu ft reflex enclosure with older JBL 10" car woofers (GT-122D) crossed over at 800 Hz to Selenium D305Ti 2" throat drivers on Selenium HL14-50 short throw conical horns, and then crossed over again at 5KHz to some (yike) Pyramid TW47 bullet tweeters (JBL 075/2402 clones). L-pads to adjust the relative driver levels to match the woofer (94dB/1w/1m). The speakers have a f3 around 35Hz which is OK since I'm using a sub below approx 60 Hz. The drivers, crossover components, L-PADS, horn ran about $350 per copy. The cabinets about $50 each. The detail, effortlessness, and raw power of the systems is pretty amazing for $400 per. I listen to music loud in a 15x25x8 ft room and these do the job nicely. Like the folks at Cerwin-Vega used to say .. Loud is good... if it's clean!
A lot of folks knock the Selenium drivers, but I've been abusing these for 4 years now and they keep coming back for more. I was leery about the Pyramid bullet tweeters, but they have worked very well and are clean as long as they are crossed over high enough. 
The imaging isn't on a par with with say electrostatics, but overall I'm happy with 'em. The name of the game is for you to like what you're hearing.


----------



## DrWho

WmAx said:


> 1st, I think you need to re-examine why you want to build something like the Klipsche. Klipsche units do not measure or behave as a known high fidelity speaker should, according to the current perceptual research in the realm of loudspeaker systems.


I don't do this very often, but would you mind enlightening us as to which Klipsch speakers you have heard? And what measurements you are referring to?

Dare I suggest that you are terribly misinformed?


----------



## DrWho

WmAx said:


> I have yet to come across a properly designed/implemented system of average sensitivity(90dB 1 watt/1meter average) with good driver motors that had what could be considered an audible problem due to compression for commercial music playback in regular room conditions when used with the appropriate subwoofer system and crossover.


So how much compression do you think is audible? I am yet to find a 90dB system that doesn't have noticeable levels of power compression...even when listening at about 70dBA slow on a ratshack meter. It is no subtle behavior, but perhaps you're suggesting that I'm getting sidetracked by the higher distortion?


----------



## DrWho

Ok, so I did a little homework...
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=270-300 ($20)
http://bmspro.com/4540ND.4540nd.0.html ($120)
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=294-472 ($330)
So that's about $500 in drivers for one cabinet? I dunno how fancy you want the enclosure to be, but it could be done for about $100 and then figure another $100 for the xover. So that's about $1400 for the pair?

You could go with a cheaper woofer if you wanted, but the JBL is well behaved. Are you looking for something that is full range, or do you have subwoofers? A pair of 12's would have better polars and also be cheaper if you didn't want to dig quite as low.

There are also cheaper HF drivers that would work...
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=290-525
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/showdetl.cfm?Partnumber=290-448

I dunno if I'd expect better performance than the RF-82 though....there's a lot of advantage when you build at larger quantities and get to design the drivers to do exactly what you want.

For those that have had bad experiences with the RF-82 (or really any of the RF series), I would encourage trying some low output impedance amplifiers (as the impedance response is a more difficult load to drive). And if that doesn't help, then you might want to make sure you've got quality source material.


----------



## WmAx

DrWho said:


> I don't do this very often, but would you mind enlightening us as to which Klipsch speakers you have heard? And what measurements you are referring to?
> 
> Dare I suggest that you are terribly misinformed?


There is no sense in me specifying a specific model, actually, as the common most severe problems are common amongst all of the models. Instead, I will speak of these common problems that severely limit SQ from the onset. The Klipsch speakers at subject here(and indeed, all of them, of which I am aware of), have poor off axis response. Due to the tweeter design, the response over 6-7kHz will rapidly change, leaving a drastically different mid-range to treble response, comparing on and off axis plots. Wide, even response is highly desirable in an environment to produce a more pleasurable sound signature, as the human auditory system compares the ambient sound with the direct sound; differences in the balance between then are detected as a reduction in sound quality according to the perceptual texts.

The speakers have terrible quality cabinetry, and this specifically includes the RF line. The floor standing Klipsche speakers take little to no effort in reducing cabinet acoustic output. This secondary sound source acts as an overlaying response curve, that when combined with the primary direct driver acoustic output, results in perceived timbre distortion, especially in the typical far-field speaker placement where room contribution is significant. Resonances are actually more difficult to detect in a near field placement; resonances are more audible when in a delayed format as in room reflections, vs. near field or anechoic conditions, where such delayed secondary sources are not present. As a consequence, heavy room treatments happen to be even more beneficial to substantially resonant speaker systems; as this reduces the resonance audibility.

-Chris


----------



## WmAx

DrWho said:


> So how much compression do you think is audible? I am yet to find a 90dB system that doesn't have noticeable levels of power compression...even when listening at about 70dBA slow on a ratshack meter. It is no subtle behavior, but perhaps you're suggesting that I'm getting sidetracked by the higher distortion?


What exactly is your methodology for comparing? What controls did you establish?

From a typical listening distance (2-3 Meters), there is no evidence of which I am aware that supports your claim, using the specific levels you have provided for reference. Indeed, simply refer to the NRC database on Soundstage Magazine's website for numerous response graphs of good quality speakers graphed at different SPL levels to show relative response differences, and compression is often incredibly minute.

I have, however, produced careful comparisons of 'compression', using tight controls - established using systems with very high dynamic capability and inducing controlled compression using software. Not even drastic compression limiting, beyond what any driver will produce, has 'huge' effects in itself under blinded evaluations I have conducted. But this is really not the point; there is no evidence that what you stated is an accurate conclusion of what you believe you perceived as compression related problems.

-Chris


----------



## DrWho

WmAx said:


> The Klipsch speakers at subject here(and indeed, all of them, of which I am aware of), have poor off axis response.


Care to quantify that with numbers? I'd like to know what you consider poor as the measurements I've seen certainly don't indicate that at all...that's not to say that they're ideal either (but it gets real close with some of their speakers).



WmAx said:


> The speakers have terrible quality cabinetry, and this specifically includes the RF line. The floor standing Klipsche speakers take little to no effort in reducing cabinet acoustic output. This secondary sound source acts as an overlaying response curve...


I would agree that the cabinets could probably be a bit more solid, especially in the lower lines, but I don't think it's anywhere near "terrible"...and it's not like the engineers there don't know how to go way overboard with it either.


----------



## WmAx

DrWho said:


> Care to quantify that with numbers? I'd like to know what you consider poor as the measurements I've seen certainly don't indicate that at all...that's not to say that they're ideal either (but it gets real close with some of their speakers).


If you want a polar graph, Stereophile measured a bookshelf speaker with a modern version of the horn tweeter.

Even standard dome tweeters have rather mediocre off axis response; the horn tweeter on the Klipsche units is substantially worse in this regard. I suspect they continue to use this type of dispersion on the tweeter to continue a specific type of 'signature' that has always been present on their speakers - that is a direct result of this unique polar response pattern.




> I would agree that the cabinets could probably be a bit more solid, especially in the lower lines, but I don't think it's anywhere near "terrible"...and it's not like the engineers there don't know how to go way overboard with it either.


What appears to be substantial audible cabinet output, is to me, terrible. Would most people notice it? Probably not, unless you gave them a neutral reference to compare. I suspect that most people, and this includes most so-called audiophiles, have come to accept cabinet acoustic output as part of the inherent 'speaker' sound signature. Now, maybe I should state up front that my standards for audio reproduction are on what some might consider a level of absurdity - that what passes for most audiophiles with tens of thousands of dollars worth of audio gear - to me is of mediocre quality - from a quantifiable stand point.

Keep in mind, when I refer to a non-ideal property, I am being relative to 'ideal'. That is, the absolute ideal - of what is possible in the best conditions with no limitations of budget or practicality. 

-Chris


----------



## robertcharles123

WmAx said:


> There is no sense in me specifying a specific model, actually, as the common most severe problems are common amongst all of the models. Instead, I will speak of these common problems that severely limit SQ from the onset. The Klipsch speakers at subject here(and indeed, all of them, of which I am aware of), have poor off axis response. Due to the tweeter design, the response over 6-7kHz will rapidly change, leaving a drastically different mid-range to treble response, comparing on and off axis plots. Wide, even response is highly desirable in an environment to produce a more pleasurable sound signature, as the human auditory system compares the ambient sound with the direct sound; differences in the balance between then are detected as a reduction in sound quality according to the perceptual texts.
> 
> The speakers have terrible quality cabinetry, and this specifically includes the RF line. The floor standing Klipsche speakers take little to no effort in reducing cabinet acoustic output. This secondary sound source acts as an overlaying response curve, that when combined with the primary direct driver acoustic output, results in perceived timbre distortion, especially in the typical far-field speaker placement where room contribution is significant. Resonances are actually more difficult to detect in a near field placement; resonances are more audible when in a delayed format as in room reflections, vs. near field or anechoic conditions, where such delayed secondary sources are not present. As a consequence, heavy room treatments happen to be even more beneficial to substantially resonant speaker systems; as this reduces the resonance audibility.
> 
> -Chris


Poor cabinet quality on these? They have been in production for over 50 years. I've had a friend's b&w nautilus in same room and these monsters were winner by far. Granted, the B&w's were fantastic, and the most impressive part of those speakers was the mid bass and vocals on studio recordings. The k's weren't so shabby either, but, live sound, concerts, beethoven's ninth and the 1812 overture, and all my movies from the last decade were louder, cleaner, and more dynamic with the k's. Not only my opinion, but all other's in the room with me. Not only do they perform well, they are huge, but at the same time tend to "disappear" in the room. Because the corner is completely utilized, the bulk of the cabinet is in areas that would be vacant if a square box was in it's place. Plus, they are really cool to look at. They sound great just sitting there with the system off. 










Maybe you are refering to some of the lower end general public lines. It is hard to compare those lines to the upper end of Klipsch's systems. Remember, profit is important for these companies so they gives lines for all price points. Klipsch now offers the Palladium series. I wonder if you are refering to those at all. I hope not. Would it be fair to compare $400.00 speakers with $4000.00 speakers or for that matter $10,000.00 speakers?

Good luck,

Robert


----------



## DrWho

WmAx said:


> What exactly is your methodology for comparing? What controls did you establish?


I've done lots of blind A/B comparisons - even some that were deceptive by friends / lab partners trying to trip me up (it's always good to be on your toes). I've done the controlled electronic compression route as well, even did some listening for amplifier clipping audibility, etc etc... Also, compressors are a common tool in the studio so I know what compression sounds like from there too (although it sounds a little different than speaker compression). I think the key is actually listening to source material that has real dynamics....like on the order of 40dB+ from some of my favorite recordings. That means peaks of 120dB when listening at 80dB (yikes).

But then of course there's the old school blind A/B comparisons of two unknown volume matched speakers with similar bandwidths. I've done that lots of times...and always able to identify the speaker with the lower sensitivity. I am not alone in these comparisons either...

Sure, not all same sensitivity drivers have the same power compression behavior, so there will always be exceptions to the trends, but the trends still exist. Though if you really want to get into it, the acoustic efficiency is what matters most (which isn't necessarily attached to the sensitivity - like electrostatics for instance).


----------



## DrWho

WmAx said:


> If you want a polar graph, Stereophile measured a bookshelf speaker with a modern version of the horn tweeter.


Are you referencing this guy?!?
http://www.stereophile.com/budgetcomponents/204klipsch/index3.html

Sucks to be Klipsch...their bottom line Reference Bookshelf apparently dictates the performance of the entire line :O

And it's not even that bad! (though the polars are presented in a format that I'm not the most familiar with - I can't be bothered with the minutia).

Btw, I'm not interested in fabricating an image of higher refinement...


----------



## robertcharles123

DrWho said:


> Are you referencing this guy?!?
> http://www.stereophile.com/budgetcomponents/204klipsch/index3.html
> 
> Sucks to be Klipsch...their bottom line Reference Bookshelf apparently dictates the performance of the entire line :O
> 
> And it's not even that bad! (though the polars are presented in a format that I'm not the most familiar with - I can't be arsed with the minutia).
> 
> Btw, I'm not interested in fabricating an image of higher refinement...


Hey DrWho,

Is he refering to a speaker that costs 150.00? What does one expect for 150.00 these days?


----------



## WmAx

robertcharles123 said:


> Poor cabinet quality on these? They have been in production for over 50 years. I've had a friend's b&w nautilus in same room and these monsters were winner by far.


I have never seen those antiques measured - nor have I measured them. But I highly doubt they are anywhere near the level of audio reproduction of a high end B&W in terms of proper dispersion, resonance control or linearity(_though, not even the high end B&W are ideal - they leave something to be desired in off axis response and in some cases, overall amplitude linearity_). Being very high efficiency; I have no doubt they can reach high SPLs, however.

As for an in room comparison - I am not sure which speaker you compared it to - but when you say Nautilus alone - the only one I am familiar with is the exotic sea shell shaped fully active unit. But, you can make the best speaker in the world sound like utter mediocrity in with improper set up; please note: I am not saying the Nautilus is in any way the best speaker in the world. That was simply a statement of consideration that puts into perspective the importance of acoustics and set up for any individual speaker system, regardless of it's potential objective qualities.

The expected properties, in terms of dispersion and resonances, of that classic speaker, do not fit the ideal characteristics as found by the credible perceptual texts.

Anecdotal uncontrolled listening in an acoustic set up of unknown quality is certainly not on par, nor comparable with the scientifically derived data that I speak about, nor will I take such a comparison seriously. It is not comparable in quality or credibility to properly conducted research.

-Chris


----------



## WmAx

robertcharles123 said:


> Hey DrWho,
> 
> Is he refering to a speaker that costs 150.00? What does one expect for 150.00 these days?


Price has no relevance here; the single point of that was the tweeter - which is the same type - with the similar dispersion pattern type as will be found on the RF units that Dr. Who referred to.

-Chris


----------



## WmAx

DrWho said:


> I've done lots of blind A/B comparisons - even some that were deceptive by friends / lab partners trying to trip me up (it's always good to be on your toes). I've done the controlled electronic compression route as well, even did some listening for amplifier clipping audibility, etc etc... Also, compressors are a common tool in the studio so I know what compression sounds like from there too (although it sounds a little different than speaker compression). I think the key is actually listening to source material that has real dynamics....like on the order of 40dB+ from some of my favorite recordings. That means peaks of 120dB when listening at 80dB (yikes).


1st, let's address dynamic range of any particular recording. The most dynamic recording I have is 34dB peak from the average RMS power value - and that is an opera. In fact, all of the dynamic recordings I have that are in that range of dynamic is classical based. And that is a huge dynamic(30+ dB). Highly dynamic jazz or easy rock from the early 80's will range in the 25dB range. In fact, most of my classical recordings range in the 25dB range(the 30+ range being the more extreme). Common jazz today will range in the 15dB range. Rock and pop music from the late 80's and very early 90's era will be in the 18-20dB range. Modern rock and pop will average about 10dB dynamic range. So, now that this is established, then let's establish the duration of said peaks. The overwhelming majority of the time, said peaks are instantaneous; a few ms. There are the rear exceptions where he peaks may last nearly 1 second. Any decent speaker(_B&W 802D is a prime example with average efficiency_) has dynamic ability in short term of course that exceeds it's static continuous ability. Most quality speakers, in pairs, in normal size rooms, with normal acoustics, can easily achieve 105-110dB peaks cleanly(_weighting the short time duration with auditory recognition ability in this limited time span_), when powered by very high power amplifiers(_a 100 watt receiver need not apply - as this will be too close to it's clipping point or the sake of safety here - to be safe a 400 watt amplifier should be considered for these examples_). Take the 80dB average listening level you exampled in later time, and this will easily provide (25-30dB) sufficient clean dynamic ability for the most dynamic material that would be commonly owned; barring these extreme 40dB examples you cite - which would slightly exceed the ability - assuming the duration and amplitude of the 40dB peaks is of sufficient levels to actually cuase a problem - which perhaps it is not - I have not analyzed the particular recording(s) in question - and would need to set up a model based on this plus measured characteristics of a specific speaker to come to a conclusion based on these particular 40dB recordings. _Overwhelmingly, the majority of material will not exceed limits_.



> But then of course there's the old school blind A/B comparisons of two unknown volume matched speakers with similar bandwidths. I've done that lots of times...and always able to identify the speaker with the lower sensitivity. I am not alone in these comparisons either...


I certainly was not there to analyze/measure the true variables in play - but amplifier power can be an issue of course. But besides that, it is easy to A/B under blind conditions, a difference between two different speakers. Substantial measured differences that correlate with known audibility thresholds are almost always present. Also, most of the time, efficient speakers have a distinctly more limited dispersion pattern as compared to normal efficiency speakers; another variable that would be differentiated, and have a common signature due to the specific room interaction(s).



> Sure, not all same sensitivity drivers have the same power compression behavior, so there will always be exceptions to the trends, but the trends still exist. Though if you really want to get into it, the acoustic efficiency is what matters most (which isn't necessarily attached to the sensitivity - like electrostatics for instance).


I fail to see why acoustic efficiency itself matters, if mechanical/thermal capacity is of sufficiency to tolerate the needed amplifier to compensate.

Based on your statements thus far, it seems plausible that you merely have a personal preference for the acoustic signature caused by a very limited dispersion in whatever particular acoustic environment you have made such evaluation(s) in.

When you speak of comparisons in hardware/software of compression, it escapes me how one could conclude any 'substantial' difference based on the numbers involved. It requires much more ratio of compression to have an obvious difference -- far more -- than the ratio present on quality full range speaker systems powered by adequate amplification, and used within the SPL ranges specified in this thread. If one used the ratio of compression on a recorded program of that similar to a high quality full range speaker system, then it would be hardly audible if at all under direct comparison/switching. Again, refer to NRC measurements referenced earlier to acquire your ratios(which between what would equal substantial SPL differences average, equate to commonly, a tiny fraction of a dB across the bandwidth).

-Chris


----------



## robertcharles123

No fighting match here.

I thought this was about high efficiency speakers and mine are just that....period. No one can dispute that.

They were nautilus 802's.

The k's are not officially antiques yet. They will be in a couple of years. And yes, I still appreciate the way they perform.

My point is that I also have some lower end klipsch systems which are in my opinion very low in quality compared to the k's, but in no way can a blanket statement such as "klipsch" speakers sound a certain way when listening to the consumer bottom and comparing those to the top of the line.

I have lots of different brands of speakers, but the k's are my favorite if I had to choose-not saying they are better than others, that is just my opinion based on my own experience.

I have speakers from Jbl,Advent, Cerwin Vega, Polk, Acoustic Research, Electrovoice, Peavey, Klipsch,Boston Acoustics, Definitive, Allison, Yamaha, TSI, and many vintage systems by each company named, and I appreciate the sound of each one. Some are inherently "better" built than others and some are more accepted by different people. Love of music and sound reproduction is more important than who has the best and which setup can beat which. After all, I like to actually listen to the music, more than worry if my speakers are dispersing correctly or if the resistance of the cable is too low for the amps and so on. So, this is the last post for me in this thread. Back to the DIY sub forum. Maybe you can come and elaborate on the faults of my subwoofer project over there. It won't bother me in the least. At this point, I don't even have a "real" LFE setup going, so whatever I get from my lowly LMS 5400's and Itech 8000 amps is just going to have to be good enough.

Robert


----------



## WmAx

robertcharles123 said:


> My point is that I also have some lower end klipsch systems which are in my opinion very low in quality compared to the k's, but in no way can a blanket statement such as "klipsch" speakers sound a certain way when listening to the consumer bottom and comparing those to the top of the line.


I have distinctly NOT said anything about the way any of these speakers 'sound' within the scope of the serious parts of my discussion. But instead, I have been very specific about how they have and can expect to measure in reference to the ideal characteristics shown to be desirable for human via thorough controlled perceptual research.



> Back to the DIY sub forum. Maybe you can come and elaborate on the faults of my subwoofer project over their. It won't bother me in the least. At this oint, I don't even have a "real" LFE setup going, so whatever I get from my lowly LMS 5400's and Itech 8000 amps is just going to have to be good enough.
> 
> Robert


I was not aware that LMS 5400 drivers were 'lowly'. Based on the objective analysis I have seen, they are among the best measuring sub-woofer drivers ever produced.

-Chris


----------



## DrWho

Lots of conjecture, but still no real meat...

So Chris, what Klipsch speakers have you listened to and measured yourself? The list of Klipsch that I haven't heard is actually shorter...


----------



## Ricci

robertcharles123 said:


> I have speakers from Jbl,Advent, Cerwin Vega, Polk, Acoustic Research, Electrovoice, Peavey, Klipsch,Boston Acoustics, Definitive, Allison, Yamaha, TSI, and many vintage systems by each company named, and I appreciate the sound of each one. Some are inherently "better" built than others and some are more accepted by different people. Love of music and sound reproduction is more important than who has the best and which setup can beat which. After all, I like to actually listen to the music, more than worry if my speakers are dispersing correctly or if the resistance of the cable is too low for the amps and so on.
> 
> Robert


+1 :bigsmile:. 

I have spent well into 5 figures on audio over the years and I can still easily listen to a $30 clock radio and get caught up in the music without ever thinking "this sounds bad". I find myself thinking "this song is terrible" MUCH more often. Maybe because I'm a musician first and foremost.

I find it kinda sad if you are listening for dispersion artifacts, peaks in the response, or other slight colorations all of the time when you should be hearing the "good' that is there (the music) not the bad (minor percieved imperfections in the way it's presented). I can and do sit down and listen like this sometimes as you must if you are serious about your sound system, but you have to just enjoy things at some point.


----------



## Ricci

Wmax,

Among my collection I have 4 pairs of Behringer Truth B2031A's monitors, I also have a pair of Mackie HR824's, and I also have 2 pairs of Klipsch CF4's. Now the Behringer's IMO will do 90% of what the Mackie's do for one 4th the price. Awesome:R The Mackie's are really neutral, flat and overall accurate monitor's and again IMO they are great speakers, with their main weakness being lack of dynamics, overall output, clarity at high levels and bass extension. The Klipsch CF4's are probably a bit less flat, have a top end that gets a bit ragged above 17khz, are huge, and perhaps the cabinet could be more well braced. I love listening to the CF4's because all of their strengths are the weaknesses of the Mackie's. They are really dynamic, will flat out jam and remain very clear and uncongested while doing it and have tactile levels of clean output down to 30hz. In my experience large high efficiency mains have a more relaxed sound than those of more normal efficiency and I'm talking about very moderate listening levels of maybe 70db average. I like both speakers, but I actually prefer to listen to the Klipsch even with their known warts. This is because the advantages that they do have over the smaller monitors outweigh the advantages that favor the Mackie's, for me. 

I would like to see measurements of various Klipsch products that back up your position also. You always seem to reference people to read AES papers, or other research documents and that's fine, most people should read them if they are interested in audio, but it really doesn't support or explain your case that well and seems like a cop out to me. I'd like to know what your main priorities are for a speaker system, because I believe that mine would be weighted quite differently. I have a lot of opinions that are at odds with accepted practice and norms in audio though. For one the whole, you must have matrix bracing every 4sq" with constrained wall layers utilizing differing materials to eliminate cabinet resonance thing is WAY down the list for me. I'm sure it IS better than a normal well braced cabinet, but it's a very small audible difference IMO. It's on the list for a no holds barred ultimate type system, but no where near the top. If you would like to present the data from your listening tests on the subject I'd be interested in reading it.

Also...I'm quite interested in this line. 

"ideal characteristics shown to be desirable for human via thorough controlled perceptual research."

Would you care to define these "ideal characteristics"? Please don't reference another article. Explaining what you meant yourself in your own words would be better.


----------



## DrWho

Ricci, you listening to the HR824's for normal music listening? Or do you do studio work too? I find them real easy for referencing mixes, but I couldn't imagine listening to music for pleasure on them (or most any studio speaker for that matter). Maybe it's cuz it naturally turns on my "critical ears", but when I sit down to listen to music (not gear), I like to get lost in the music...and I have a hard time doing that with studio monitors.

I definitely find all of the technical side of audio very interesting, but at the end of the day what matters is the music...and ultimately that which defines technical excellence is defined by the response of the listener. I just wanted to mention that I find the art every bit as interesting as the science (if not more interesting). I just find myself defaulting to the science part on forums because there is less of a language barrier.


----------



## Ricci

I use them for both. I like the sound of a good studio monitor even though some people find them harsh or too critical (too accurate I guess?). I have them in my rehearsal space and we use them for background music, referencing and also mixing of project studio recordings. Critical listening on any speaker system for 6hrs or more is fatigueing:sweat:. I've heard many different rooms containing various JBL, Yamaha, Genelec, Mackie, M Audio, Alesis, Tannoy, Dynaudio set-ups. Some were definitly better than others, but I didn't want to listen to even the best of them after a few hours of hardcore listening/tweaking/listening/tweaking/bouncing/ tweaking/ break/listening/ etc.:wits-end:

Ditto on your whole 2nd paragraph. I am the same way. I like to normally discuss the science because it is usually quantifiable at least.


----------



## WmAx

Ricci said:


> Wmax,
> 
> Among my collection I have 4 pairs of Behringer Truth B2031A's monitors, I also have a pair of Mackie HR824's, and I also have 2 pairs of Klipsch CF4's. Now the Behringer's IMO will do 90% of what the Mackie's do for one 4th the price. Awesome:R The Mackie's are really neutral, flat and overall accurate monitor's and again IMO they are great speakers, with their main weakness being lack of dynamics, overall output, clarity at high levels and bass extension. The Klipsch CF4's are probably a bit less flat, have a top end that gets a bit ragged above 17khz, are huge, and perhaps the cabinet could be more well braced. I love listening to the CF4's because all of their strengths are the weaknesses of the Mackie's. They are really dynamic, will flat out jam and remain very clear and uncongested while doing it and have tactile levels of clean output down to 30hz. In my experience large high efficiency mains have a more relaxed sound than those of more normal efficiency and I'm talking about very moderate listening levels of maybe 70db average. I like both speakers, but I actually prefer to listen to the Klipsch even with their known warts. This is because the advantages that they do have over the smaller monitors outweigh the advantages that favor the Mackie's, for me.
> 
> 
> 
> Is that not a powered speaker? I would be 1st curious to examine the behavior of the amplifier. 2nd, I never like to see 2 way speakers used for full range applications; this is almost always a compromise - forcing the mid-range speaker to move excessive ranges in the motor flux field since it is being used for the bass also, cuasing various increased distortions due to this directly, and even possibly intermodulation phase distortion caused by the physical movement of the cone while at the same time reproducing lower treble. IN any case, it's premature to make a conclusion that is generally sweeping - or even to conclude such things like Dr. Who did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I would like to see measurements of various Klipsch products that back up your position also.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't have any. The polar response is exactly as I stated - and is a result of the tweeter loading used. It is not debatable - it's just the way they perform. The cheap speaker I referenced uses precisely the same lens loading type that their other Klipsche speakers use. As for the resonant behavior of the cabinets -- you only need to examine one for a moment. The vibration from the cabinet is excessive, and it is poorly dampened/braced and is a very large surface area on their floorstanders. And this is in reference to their most expensive Reference line floorstander that I examined. I was rather surprised myself, but then again, most people are not expecting an actual 'reference' grade speaker. So I suppose it's great for it's intended audience.
> 
> 
> 
> You always seem to reference people to read AES papers, or other research documents and that's fine, most people should read them if they are interested in audio, but it really doesn't support or explain your case that well and seems like a cop out to me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See it as you like; I was just trying to help with information in this thread.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd like to know what your main priorities are for a speaker system, because I believe that mine would be weighted quite differently.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> -Even, wide dispersion, through the entire audible band.
> -Smooth frequency response
> -Lowest resonance possible, in all forms(drivers, cabinet panels, interior acoustic volume).
> -Distortion that is under audible levels w/music program
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a lot of opinions that are at odds with accepted practice and norms in audio though. For one the whole, you must have matrix bracing every 4sq" with constrained wall layers utilizing differing materials to eliminate cabinet resonance thing is WAY down the list for me. I'm sure it IS better than a normal well braced cabinet, but it's a very small audible difference IMO. It's on the list for a no holds barred ultimate type system, but no where near the top. If you would like to present the data from your listening tests on the subject I'd be interested in reading it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe that is the problem. I don't do 'compromised'. I do ideal. I do not any longer use retail products - and I am not used to putting up with the huge compromises that they have(excepting a select few expensive products).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Also...I'm quite interested in this line.
> 
> "ideal characteristics shown to be desirable for human via thorough controlled perceptual research."
> 
> Would you care to define these "ideal characteristics"? Please don't reference another article. Explaining what you meant yourself in your own words would be better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, then I won't reference the article names....but I must still refer the names; but I think you know that most of them deal with Toole and Olive's work anyway.
> 
> Wide even response is shown to be critical in real acoustic environment for increasing perceived sound quality; the brain identifies/compares the delayed ambient field with the direct radiation - differences in spectrum balance are not interpreted as positive: this is the conclusion by massive bodies of work by both Toole(Harman, NRC) in the late 80's and Paisley(Mirage, NRC) in the late 70's/early 80's. Further more, low resonance properties are shown originally by Fryer (70's) in research, then reproduced and expanded upon by Toole in the early 90's. In Toole's research in resonance audibility, an interesting issue came up that was not expected. Wide, even off axis response, when free of resonances based from the speaker, enhance the SQ even further ; producing enhanced timbre resolution/realism.
> 
> So, it's pretty easy to see where my objectives for a speaker originate from. These concepts are simple. But executing them ideally is not so easy.
> 
> -Chris
Click to expand...


----------



## WmAx

DrWho said:


> Lots of conjecture, but still no real meat...
> 
> So Chris, what Klipsch speakers have you listened to and measured yourself? The list of Klipsch that I haven't heard is actually shorter...


I have had the opportunity to hear the most expensive floorstanders from the reference line - set up in an excellent acoustic environment with high coverage of diffusion on most of the side walls and ideal placement into the room. I could not get past the timbre distortion caused by the substantial cabinet resonance and the limited dispersion. I can see why the might appeal to people that like non-realistic studio produced music. 

As far as the compression issue -- give me a model based on measurements that shows the deficiencies for the overwhelming majority of music. Through my extensive analysis of drivers, distortion and the signal dynamics in recordings, I have learned a lot about the actual requirements. Assuming a multi-way speaker with high quality drivers - the main limitation I usually find that will cause degraded sound quality at moderate SPLs is limited amplifier power. Listening at 90dB-95dB average will cause a regular 80-100 watt amplifier to clip easily on peaks for extended periods on average sensitivity speakers. Even at 85 dB average, it can be an issue, assuming a specific combination of distance vs. dynamics in the recorded music. I have put extensive work into ensuring no clipping or substantial compression is an issue with music I listen to at the levels I listen to - I even substantial work into this with headphone systems. In fact, just so you can see the kind of trouble I go through for every little thing, here is a post I made on clipping due to voltage rail limits on a hi-fi headphone; an investigation into what level of amplification is needed for my most widely used reference phone: LINK. Most data I aquire/analyze in for my personal use - and I rarely go through the trouble to format it for public display. This is for example purpose only of the level of concern I have for any source of dynamic signal limits. Now back to speakers(or headphones): I only use levels of power that are likely to not experience clipping even on my most dynamic recordings that I listen to - and I have never had a problem with my systems. As a point of reference, my computer near field monitor sound system is a fully active system with about 1050 WRMS per stereo channel - and it has no issues even at very high SPL levels. 200 watts to each tweeter, 200 watts to each mid-range and 650 watts to each woofer. My main system is a little bit weaker at the moment - but I'm in a point of transition and getting ready to move to new main speakers this year - after which that system will have over 3kW per stereo channel.

-Chris


----------



## Ricci

WmAx said:


> Ricci said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that not a powered speaker? I would be 1st curious to examine the behavior of the amplifier. 2nd, I never like to see 2 way speakers used for full range applications; this is almost always a compromise - forcing the mid-range speaker to move excessive ranges in the motor flux field since it is being used for the bass also, cuasing various increased distortions due to this directly, and even possibly intermodulation phase distortion caused by the physical movement of the cone while at the same time reproducing lower treble. IN any case, it's premature to make a conclusion that is generally sweeping - or even to conclude such things like Dr. Who did.
> 
> Woah there. I never said that I run the active monitors full range.. I have tried it to see what it sounds like , but I run all of my speakers high passed with big very powerful subwoofers covering the bass range. Even the Klipsch towers. You aren't familiar with either the Behringer's or the Mackie HR824's? Both are actively biamped & x-overed
> 
> I don't have any. The polar response is exactly as I stated - and is a result of the tweeter loading used. It is not debatable - it's just the way they perform. The cheap speaker I referenced uses precisely the same lens loading type that their other Klipsche speakers use. As for the resonant behavior of the cabinets -- you only need to examine one for a moment. The vibration from the cabinet is excessive, and it is poorly dampened/braced and is a very large surface area on their floorstanders. And this is in reference to their most expensive Reference line floorstander that I examined. I was rather surprised myself, but then again, most people are not expecting an actual 'reference' grade speaker. So I suppose it's great for it's intended audience.
> 
> Isn't this the same kind of sweeping generalization that Dr Who made? You cannot assume that all of the Klipsch speakers have the same HF driver(they don't) or that the lens used is of the same shape, size, or radiation pattern because they aren't. Also what is wrong with a controlled amount of directivity?
> 
> See it as you like; I was just trying to help with information in this thread.
> 
> -Even, wide dispersion, through the entire audible band.
> -Smooth frequency response
> -Lowest resonance possible, in all forms(drivers, cabinet panels, interior acoustic volume).
> -Distortion that is under audible levels w/music program
> 
> I would say that #4 is my #1 followed by very high spl capability and dynamic range to the extremes of the audible frequency spectrum, high sensitivity and ruggedness. These all tie in together. After that comes smooth extended natural FR, followed by the rest with lowest resonance possible at the very bottom. I just don't think that a solid well designed and adequately braced cabinet like a Paradigm Signature series cabinet is going to sound a whole lot different from a 6" thick, granite enclosure. There may be a few minute audible nasties out of the regular wooden cab, but compared to the rest of the considerations, it's low man for me.
> 
> 
> Maybe that is the problem. I don't do 'compromised'. I do ideal. I do not any longer use retail products - and I am not used to putting up with the huge compromises that they have(excepting a select few expensive products).
> 
> There is no ideal other than the one that works for you. Everyone else's is different and everything is compromised in one area or another.
> 
> Well, then I won't reference the article names....but I must still refer the names; but I think you know that most of them deal with Toole and Olive's work anyway.
> 
> Wide even response is shown to be critical in real acoustic environment for increasing perceived sound quality; the brain identifies/compares the delayed ambient field with the direct radiation - differences in spectrum balance are not interpreted as positive: this is the conclusion by massive bodies of work by both Toole(Harman, NRC) in the late 80's and Paisley(Mirage, NRC) in the late 70's/early 80's. Further more, low resonance properties are shown originally by Fryer (70's) in research, then reproduced and expanded upon by Toole in the early 90's. In Toole's research in resonance audibility, an interesting issue came up that was not expected. Wide, even off axis response, when free of resonances based from the speaker, enhance the SQ even further ; producing enhanced timbre resolution/realism.
> 
> So, it's pretty easy to see where my objectives for a speaker originate from. These concepts are simple. But executing them ideally is not so easy
> -Chris
> 
> 
> 
> What if the direct sound percentage is greatly increased and reflections are reduced? Apparently the ideal speaker is one that radiates completely even response in all 360deg? I usually prefer more direct sound from the speaker and a bit less reflected sound from the room. I think I'd prefer a speaker that radiated evenly in only 90degrees or so over the 360deg radiating sphere, but who knows I never heard one.
Click to expand...


----------



## DrWho

WmAx said:


> -Even, wide dispersion, through the entire audible band.
> -Smooth frequency response
> -Lowest resonance possible, in all forms(drivers, cabinet panels, interior acoustic volume).
> -Distortion that is under audible levels w/music program
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe that is the problem. I don't do 'compromised'. I do ideal. I do not any longer use retail products - and I am not used to putting up with the huge compromises that they have(excepting a select few expensive products).


I think the problem is you're expecting ideal from what, a $3000 pair of speakers? There is a lot to be said for understanding and appreciating the compromises that must be made...even when talking "ideal" because many of the performance criteria are directly opposing.

As far as polars are concerned, horns are a wonderful thing because you can make the polars whatever you want. There's a lot to be said for a speaker that naturally avoids early reflections. Creating a dense semi-reverberant sound field is every bit a function of room acoustics as it is a function of the speaker's power response. Horns are doubly awesome because they yield lower distortion too (win-win).

The only tradeoff to a horn is size....so I would hope someone claiming they're only concerned with the ideal has actually listened to a fully hornloaded system of proper proportion to achieve both a flat power response and on-axis response....and then listened to it in a room with correctly splayed walls and ceiling (no room modes), along with all the treatments necessary for creating the desired "imaging". You won't get that with cone and dome (and certainly not at the same distortion levels). As far as I know, no such system exists  (although the Jubilee comes real close in an acceptable form factor at about $7k or so).

Btw, imaging in a 2-channel system is entirely fabricated and there is no way to achieve any semblance of preserving the spatial detail of the recording (although a lot of systems can be quite convincing). Bell Labs did a lot of research on that in the 70's (concluding a minimum of 7 channel surround). I believe Toole has commented similarly in some of his writings as well.

To be honest, I could care less about theory if the results are lackluster. From your comments, I would expect to see $3k speakers that way outperform the RF-83...haven't heard one yet.


----------



## WmAx

Ricci said:


> Woah there. I never said that I run the active monitors full range.. I have tried it to see what it sounds like , but I run all of my speakers high passed with big very powerful subwoofers covering the bass range. Even the Klipsch towers. You aren't familiar with either the Behringer's or the Mackie HR824's? Both are actively biamped & x-overed


I am familar with those speakers. I did a full analysis on the passive version of one of the Behringer models - and it's performance was unbelievable for the price. I did not know such performance was possible at that price previously. As for being active monitors - this does not mean the amps uses are sufficient for the dynamics you clearly desire. The amplifiers can easily be the limiting factor.



> Isn't this the same kind of sweeping generalization that Dr Who made? You cannot assume that all of the Klipsch speakers have the same HF driver(they don't) or that the lens used is of the same shape, size, or radiation pattern because they aren't. Also what is wrong with a controlled amount of directivity?


Not at all; all Klipsche speakers to my knowledge are designed with limited HF dispersion and I am not aware of any information to the contrary. And I have yet to come across one with a low resonance cabinet - even in the top RF model. The vast majority of horns and waveguides are used to direct/reduce directionality, and focus it over a narrower specific range.


> I would say that #4 is my #1 followed by very high spl capability and dynamic range to the extremes of the audible frequency spectrum, high sensitivity and ruggedness. These all tie in together. After that comes smooth extended natural FR, followed by the rest with lowest resonance possible at the very bottom. I just don't think that a solid well designed and adequately braced cabinet like a Paradigm Signature series cabinet is going to sound a whole lot different from a 6" thick, granite enclosure. There may be a few minute audible nasties out of the regular wooden cab, but compared to the rest of the considerations, it's low man for me.


Resonance: I guess this depends on the music. Pop, rock other non-realistic music, it is not that important, IMO. With classical or other music composed of mostly non amplified natural acoustic components - especially solo parts - the timbre distortion caused by resonance destroys the realism of the illusion even if otherwise the speakers and recording and room would have permitted it to sound realistic. The addition of substantial timbre distortions add tonal components that are static - to all of the sound produced from the speakers - where as normally - every different part of the recording should have it's own unique timbrel information. While I had no way to do this with more control: I took a pair of well set up Theile CS 3.7 speakers -- they have resonant cabinet for sure - but less than most. Compared A/B to a non-resonant reference(modified DT880 headphone) with the same material, set at as close a SPL as possible, you could clearly pick out the static timbre distortions in piano, classical vocal and other such music. The resonance was like an overlaying 'warmth' that removed the natural sound/resolution you expected. This was with a decently braced speaker - but still far less than ideal. The timbrel distortion I heard with the RF Klipsche under the same conditions seemed huge in comparison. Since for me, if a speaker can not come close to a realistic illusion with classical and other acoustic type recordings of high quality - then it's not worth using - then by that my standards may again be unreasonable?



> There is no ideal other than the one that works for you. Everyone else's is different and everything is compromised in one area or another.


According to the credible perceptual research, the ideals of measured performance are remarkably similar for almost everyone. Of course, I speak of conclusions from statistically valid blinded listening evaluations - not the uncontrolled and speculative opinions of single users.



> What if the direct sound percentage is greatly increased and reflections are reduced?


Then you reduce the SQ; it's simple. Toole and Olive concluded that if the off axis output was very similar to the on axis(it almost never is), then the result is increased SQ to the listeners in controlled evaluations - an enhanced perception of the natural timbre of the recorded instruments is the result.



> Apparently the ideal speaker is one that radiates completely even response in all 360deg? I usually prefer more direct sound from the speaker and a bit less reflected sound from the room. I think I'd prefer a speaker that radiated evenly in only 90degrees or so over the 360deg radiating sphere, but who knows I never heard one.


I would say it depends on the room acoustics. I have available, a vast array of acoustical treatments. I have experimented with all sort of effective room loadings. Now, of course a regular room acoustic with normal set up/placement could not do justice to an omnipolar full band system. In fact, it is likely the results would be disastrous. But it would work well with a system having wide, even dispersion in the front plane.

-Chris


----------



## WmAx

DrWho said:


> I think the problem is you're expecting ideal from what, a $3000 pair of speakers? There is a lot to be said for understanding and appreciating the compromises that must be made...even when talking "ideal" because many of the performance criteria are directly opposing.


I admit, I'm unreasonable when it comes to what I expect from commercial speakers.


> As far as polars are concerned, horns are a wonderful thing because you can make the polars whatever you want. There's a lot to be said for a speaker that naturally avoids early reflections. Creating a dense semi-reverberant sound field is every bit a function of room acoustics as it is a function of the speaker's power response. Horns are doubly awesome because they yield lower distortion too (win-win).


Wonderful? It sounds like your ideal would be a 1st class near-field set up, combined with room treatments.

BTW, I have an incredibly accurate, low resonance, high fidelity nearfield system with extensive room treatments.

The result of removing the ideal type of room reflections is reduced realism of natural sound sources and a reduction of the illusion of the spatial sound field.




> Btw, imaging in a 2-channel system is entirely fabricated and there is no way to achieve any semblance of preserving the spatial detail of the recording (although a lot of systems can be quite convincing). Bell Labs did a lot of research on that in the 70's (concluding a minimum of 7 channel surround). I believe Toole has commented similarly in some of his writings as well.


Everything in a 2 channel system is illusion/delusion.  But it works wonderfully under the right conditions, and it's still the standard. Tom Holman has the best system I know of - it's a 10 channel surround format with strict recording/production standards to allow realistic reproduction of any acoustic situation. Unfortunately, the chance of such standards being adopted anytime soon are remote.



> To be honest, I could care less about theory if the results are lackluster. From your comments, I would expect to see $3k speakers that way outperform the RF-83...haven't heard one yet.


$3k is not much to produce an ideal full range speaker. The cheapest commercial speaker I would be semi-satisfied with today costs about $14k/pair.

-Chris


----------



## Ricci

So you are saying that a controlled directivity is never desirable, has lower inherent SQ and that a perfect radiating sphere is the holy grail and will always be a superior sound reproducer? 

How sure are you that the difference that you heard between a set of reference headphones and the Thiel's was due to cabinet resonance from the Thiel's? This is a very mismatched comparison and the two systems and environments are radically different. This could have been attributable to any number of things.

Semi satisfied with just a $14K set of speakers huh? Geez.

I would ask you this as a serious question. Can, or do you enjoy listening to music on cheap or average systems? You know the factory car stereos, HTIB's and cheap stereos of the world that 99% of people own? Can you listen to media on something like that and enjoy it?

I would never buy commercial speakers for that kind of money. Custom or DIY for me. The law of diminishing returns kicks in really heavily above $2-3000 comercially.


----------



## WmAx

Ricci said:


> So you are saying that a controlled directivity is never desirable, has lower inherent SQ and that a perfect radiating sphere is the holy grail and will always be a superior sound reproducer?


In the ideal environment, yes, it will produce superior sound(at least as far as the front radiation plane is concerned). The rear radiation desirability is still in study.

Now, if you have a room with horrible acoustics, and are not willing to optimize set up and room acoustics, then controlled directionality can increase SQ.



> How sure are you that the difference that you heard between a set of reference headphones and the Thiel's was due to cabinet resonance from the Thiel's? This is a very mismatched comparison and the two systems and environments are radically different. This could have been attributable to any number of things.


I only offered that as a personal experience with a well regarded speaker. But I have trained my hearing to recognize such signature distortions and the causes through extensive ABX tests. The timbre distortion/resonance has a very unique signature that is hard to mistake for anything else once you train your hearing. I have also compared, under highly controlled, double blinded conditions, speaker cabinet resonance - by way of comparing two cabinets of varying resonance - with the same drivers and crossovers.


> I would ask you this as a serious question. Can, or do you enjoy listening to music on cheap or average systems? You know the factory car stereos, HTIB's and cheap stereos of the world that 99% of people own? Can you listen to media on something like that and enjoy it?


I can listen in a casual manner on 'normal' audio systems. But for any critical listening, it's impossible for me listen on a normal audio system or listen to poorly recorded music. I can certainly stand regular speakers for TV and movies. But I don't care much for movies and tv..... and the soundtracks for such don't compare to the good music recordings in terms of realism.... so I have much more lax standards for tv and movies.

-Chris


----------



## DrWho

WmAx said:


> Wonderful? It sounds like your ideal would be a 1st class near-field set up, combined with room treatments.


Actually it's not....why's that? Because the distortion is way too high.



WmAx said:


> The result of removing the ideal type of room reflections is reduced realism of natural sound sources and a reduction of the illusion of the spatial sound field.


I am not suggesting the removal of any room reflections - for someone claiming to be so up and up on the latest acoustic research, I'm surprised you would even imply I was saying that.

To way over simplify my viewpoint, I'm interested in a reflection free Haas window with a naturally decaying and dense as possible ETC. The Haas kicker should be about 20dB down from the direct sound, but different styles of music and recording will dictate slightly different magnitudes and decay rates. Of course, maintaining tonal balance in both the direct sound and reflected sound is also important.

Another good sounding room, although very little researched is the notion of Ambechoic...I've not heard it for myself, but it's an interesting principal where there is no Haas window, just an instantly decaying semi-reverberant field that starts off about 20dB down. I believe Davis and some friends did this in a studio in Nashville and they claimed it sounded much nicer (although it's quite impractical to implement, but the ideal doesn't care about impractical).

Following from the above, there is no reason why a horn is at any disadvantage to achieving the same fake spatial qualities as a direct radiator. In fact, I actually think it's easier to obtain a better sense of realism.



WmAx said:


> Unfortunately, the chance of such standards being adopted anytime soon are remote.


That sounds like justifying mediocrity to me...


----------



## DrWho

WmAx said:


> Not at all; all Klipsche speakers to my knowledge are designed with limited HF dispersion and I am not aware of any information to the contrary.


You realize that is on purpose for making it sound better, right? If Klipsch had it their way, they'd have "limited dispersion" throughout the entire spectrum.

It is entirely possible to achieve "limited dispersion" (I prefer the term "controlled dispersion") without changing the tonal balance between direct and reflected sound. In other words, a flat power response with flat on-axis response.

Therefore, there is no inherant destruction of spatiality except by improper implementation or room acoustics.

With the reference style speakers, the controlled HF polars allow speaker position in the corners without adding early reflections. There is a region in the lower mids where the speaker loses pattern control, but as you move beyond that region you start relying on the corner for boundary gain (lower distortion) AND pattern control....ultimately you end up with very near to a flat power response - if you wanted it perfect, then have frequency specific absorption in the lower mids in the front corners (just enough to balance out the power response).

Yes, I'm way over simplifying just to make a point.


----------



## WmAx

DrWho said:


> Actually it's not....why's that? Because the distortion is way too high.


Really? I don't know what kind of stuff you are listening to, but plenty of direct radiators have distortion lower than the audibility threshold in this use, when provided with sufficient power to avoid clipping. This is rather the odd claim I must say.... unless you are listening at averaged SPL levels that are high enough to be damaging to hearing in relative short order. Or lacking the very specific conditions I have outlined where moderate to high SPL may cause distortion, it may be your imagination. It's not hard to convince one's self of non-existent characteristics. I'm not immune to such psychological effect, nor is any other human to my knowledge. Or as I outlined early - it can be simple misinterpretation of a characteristic.




> I am not suggesting the removal of any room reflections - for someone claiming to be so up and up on the latest acoustic research, I'm surprised you would even imply I was saying that.


But your discussion point of view has the result of substantially reducing the level of the primary reflection points. The usefulness of these reflections is not only dependent on spectral balance, but also incident angle of reflection AND intensity. If you have the other two correct, but the intensity is too low, then it will not enhance timbrel resolution/realism and enhance spatial qualities that are possible.



> To way over simplify my viewpoint, I'm interested in a reflection free Haas window with a naturally decaying and dense as possible ETC. The Haas kicker should be about 20dB down from the direct sound, but different styles of music and recording will dictate slightly different magnitudes and decay rates. Of course, maintaining tonal balance in both the direct sound and reflected sound is also important.
> 
> Another good sounding room, although very little researched is the notion of Ambechoic...I've not heard it for myself, but it's an interesting principal where there is no Haas window, just an instantly decaying semi-reverberant field that starts off about 20dB down. I believe Davis and some friends did this in a studio in Nashville and they claimed it sounded much nicer (although it's quite impractical to implement, but the ideal doesn't care about impractical).
> 
> Following from the above, there is no reason why a horn is at any disadvantage to achieving the same fake spatial qualities as a direct radiator. In fact, I actually think it's easier to obtain a better sense of realism.


But, the horn reduces the off axis intensity by too great a level to be compatible with the perceptual function as described above.

As far as the ambechoic idea, it looks like it has it's uses, but none of which are useful for reproducing stereo recordings as best as is possible. That technique is simply to apply wide band diffusion to nearly the entire wall surface area of a room. There are no reflections, which are very useful in specific points. Of course, you could easily add reflectors to specific parts of the ambechoic room and it may then be ideal for this purpose.

About rooms.... my ideal room which I build eventually... is virtually void of a Haas window by result of side effect of the concept. It is a room with 4-6" of high density rockwool or fiberglass on 100 percent of the walls, ceiling and floor. A carpet covered grate will cover the floor to support a chair, speakers and walking around. Acoustic reflectors and diffusers are set up in the room to add the desired reflections. That is, my idea is to work from the reverse of normal. Instead of starting with a horrible uncontrolled resonant/reverberant room and trying to treat it to be desirable, I shall start with a room void of any reflections or reverberations and add in the reflectors and diffusers at various points until it is exactly as desired. I could even use more speakers, placed at the intended reflection points instead of reflectors, and control the delay and intensity of each speaker source exactly as I prefer for experiments or listening.

My current room is pretty nice though. I have collected enough acoustical treatment devices over the years that I have an excess; I can't possibly use them all in my listening room or the room ends up too dead/lifeless. But it's not what I ideally want. 




> That sounds like justifying mediocrity to me...


It's the reality. There are no reliable standards of mixing / producing music to realistically capture and re-create an acoustic environment. Not even in the regular surround format. I consider it a small miracle then, that at least with the right set up and audio trickery effects, that a realistic sounding illusion(_even if not a re-creation of the original presentation, it can sound like 'a' realistic presentation_) can even be accomplished at all.

-Chris


----------



## WmAx

DrWho said:


> You realize that is on purpose for making it sound better, right? If Klipsch had it their way, they'd have "limited dispersion" throughout the entire spectrum.
> 
> It is entirely possible to achieve "limited dispersion" (I prefer the term "controlled dispersion") without changing the tonal balance between direct and reflected sound. In other words, a flat power response with flat on-axis response.
> 
> Therefore, there is no inherant destruction of spatiality except by improper implementation or room acoustics..


As I stated in the last post, intensity is an important factor, along with incident angle and spectrum balance. The only use I see for constant direcitivity designs (assuming one that actually has flat off axis power response) is for poor room acoustics. Yes, it will sound superior in these rooms highly compromised for acoustics.

-Chris


----------



## bluejay

> About rooms.... my ideal room which I build eventually... is virtually void of a Haas window by result of side effect of the concept. It is a room with 4-6" of high density rockwool or fiberglass on 100 percent of the walls, ceiling and floor.


You are right about insulating the room like that. May I suggest you also build that room with a double layer of 5/8" drywall. Think about using acoustical caulking between stud and drywall. Also decouple and float any penetrations like windows. You can also decouple one room from another by using 2 independent stud walls, with or without shared top and bottom caps. 

I have seen the above implemented in architect designed buildings where acoustics were of primary importance. They were also probably doing other things, but I was only there for a few hours.


----------



## Ricci

WmAx said:


> It's the reality. There are no reliable standards of mixing / producing music to realistically capture and re-create an acoustic environment. Not even in the regular surround format. I consider it a small miracle then, that at least with the right set up and audio trickery effects, that a realistic sounding illusion(_even if not a re-creation of the original presentation, it can sound like 'a' realistic presentation_) can even be accomplished at all.
> 
> -Chris


True. You have to understand that a very large percentage of recordings have no intention whatsoever of recreating any kind of actual acoustic space at all. In addition many of them are not intended to recreate any sort of live event, or recreation of a an original presentation that actually happened. Back in the day this was the goal of every recording but today it is not. Many are a synthetic mix in which a space is created and the goal is to place at some fictional place in which an ideal live performance COULD take place. Many times like being a fly on the wall at a groups rehearsal space. Live sound usually has VERY big warts in the presentation no matter what form of music is being discussed.


----------



## DrWho

WmAx said:


> Really? I don't know what kind of stuff you are listening to, but plenty of direct radiators have distortion lower than the audibility threshold in this use, when provided with sufficient power to avoid clipping. This is rather the odd claim I must say....


I don't know of any speaker in the world with less than 0.01%THD.

And yes, blind ABX comparisons have been done. I would have tested to smaller levels until it wasn't audible, but that was beyond the capabilities of the test electronics (and of course it was way beyond the performance of the speakers, which were doing about 0.5%THD). The test was conducted using music. Even if I'm being outrageous and only 0.1% is audible, direct radiators are going to be way beyond that.



WmAx said:


> But your discussion point of view has the result of substantially reducing the level of the primary reflection points.


Can you define "primary reflection"?



WmAx said:


> But, the horn reduces the off axis intensity by too great a level to be compatible with the perceptual function as described above.


I absolutely beg to differ.

Provide any target ETC to aim for and I can find a horn-room system that achieves it.



WmAx said:


> About rooms.... my ideal room which I build eventually... is virtually void of a Haas window by result of side effect of the concept. It is a room with 4-6" of high density rockwool or fiberglass on 100 percent of the walls, ceiling and floor.


That only gets you anechoic above ~1kHz at best...anything below that will just fly right on through and exhibit the exact same behavior of a normal room. So much for flat spectral balance in the semi-reverberant field....

Speaking of which, you do NOT want specular reflections, which is what you're proposing. You want to get the semi-reverberant field as reverberant as possible in order for it to sound natural. That means as many reflections as possible - and you don't want any one reflection to be greater than the ones around it.

Can you also define what you mean by "incidence angle"?

Anyways, I've listened to systems in rooms very much like what you describe your ideal to be and it is a quite horrid experience. I would only consider such a room with extra speakers and a processor designed for creating spatial cues....and do it with microphones in the room so the listener doesn't feel like he's in a void when the music stops. Lexicon has a system for doing this actually (can't remember the model number off the top of my head). That will about multiply the expense of the system by 10x too...all because someone doesn't want to actually understand and design a room with proper acoustics.


----------



## WmAx

DrWho said:


> I don't know of any speaker in the world with less than 0.01%THD.


Unless the harmonic spectrum has unusual high order harmonic behavior, then the normal distributions, as produced by simulations in perceptual testing, and that are common of normal well behaving amplifiers and transducers, have been found to require on the order of 2-3 percent THD before the most sensitive listeners could detect THD on the most sensitive music selections. James Moire, whom has studied audibility of THD for decades, in relation to harmonic order and program selection, has an excellent article covering perceptual research in this field: 
Just Detectable Distortion Levels
James Moire, F.I.E.E.
Wireless World, Feb. 1981, Pages 32-34 and 38



> That only gets you anechoic above ~1kHz at best...anything below that will just fly right on through and exhibit the exact same behavior of a normal room. So much for flat spectral balance in the semi-reverberant field....


6" of high density rockwook or fiberglass(4-6lb/ft^3), A mount, will have an extremely high co-efficient down to at least 100Hz, removing most of all reflections/reverberation as a base behavior. There are even anechoic chambers made using this as the base construction. Refer to the anechoic calibration chamber at LinearX.



> Speaking of which, you do NOT want specular reflections, which is what you're proposing. You want to get the semi-reverberant field as reverberant as possible in order for it to sound natural. That means as many reflections as possible - and you don't want any one reflection to be greater than the ones around it.


You are way off base. I propose inverting the relationship of room treatment. Add diffusion and reflections until ideal behavior is achieved. Instead of the other way around. Any level or amount of reflections/reverberations can be achieved in the environment.




> Anyways, I've listened to systems in rooms very much like what you describe your ideal to be and it is a quite horrid experience.


Where exactly have you encountered a room very much like I described? I am not aware of it it ever being done. I believe you are yet confused again.

Dr. Who: it seems most of what you are debating is composed of your personal 'experiences'. However, I am discussing data based on the scientific literature.

-Chris


----------



## avaserfi

DrWho,

I consider myself fairly versed with research of perception involving nonlinear distortion, radiation patterns, resonances and acoustics (among other things). I am wondering if it is possible for you to cite your sources regarding your claims? I have not yet seen any evidence supporting your claims within my personal collection of literature (in fact much of my literature contradicts your statements) and would be curious to read such literature. 

Thanks!


----------



## aceinc

I think the original poster wanted to know (metaphorically) what time it is, not how to build the watch.

What I am saying is, while the discussions here are entertaining I believe the initial purpose of the thread was, where can he find a good design for efficient, high power handling speakers?

I personaaly think the question might be better stated;

At listening position which is n feet from the speaker, I want 'x' db SPL with the speaker driven by 'y' watts of power. The speaker will need to handle 'z' watts of power without appreciable distortion. What speaker will come as close to matching this criteria?

Paul


----------



## DrWho

avaserfi said:


> DrWho,
> 
> I consider myself fairly versed with research of perception involving nonlinear distortion, radiation patterns, resonances and acoustics (among other things). I am wondering if it is possible for you to cite your sources regarding your claims? I have not yet seen any evidence supporting your claims within my personal collection of literature (in fact much of my literature contradicts your statements) and would be curious to read such literature.
> 
> Thanks!


I'm referring to some tests I did in college where we were designing a class D amplifier....curious about the effects of distortion on audibility and what targets we needed to hit, we did some distortion comparison listening.

The comparison was done in a lab with a loud noise floor, terrible acoustics, and sitting in the nearfield of a Chorus II speaker. We generated fake 2nd and 3rd harmonic distortion....there were times that we would have A and B be the exact same thing to see if we were faking ourselves out...nope, no false positives ever.

And the listeners were just normal students that didn't care about high-fidelity audio. I remember vividly though that it is most easy to hear on snare hits.

If you think I'm crazy, then great, but go listen to a wireless mic and then compare that to a wired mic with the same head. No way you're not going to be able to hear a difference between the 1% THD in the wireless mic versus the 0.1% -ish of the wired mic. It's not even close.

I can think of countless other examples too. , just a couple weeks ago I was dialing in some mains and was able to clearly hear the 1% THD. Even the people helping me could hear the overtones too. It was all 2nd and 3rd harmonic with the higher orders buried into the noise floor.

Claiming 3% as the limit of audibility is insane if you ask me.

EDIT...just wondering what other claims you might want to see sources on.


----------



## WmAx

DrWho said:


> If you think I'm crazy, then great....


No one is accusing, nor implying, that you are crazy.

However, one must question the validity of your distortion 'simulation', and it's actual effect(s). The known double blind testing, performed using methodology that was insured to act as intended for simulation, and reviewed by one of the most thorough and long standing researchers of the subjective effect of harmonic distortion, simply has a very different conclusion as compared to your brief experiment.

Now, of course, the thresholds given previously are for music. Isolated sine waves, of course, will allow harmonic distortion to be detected at very small levels.

BTW, Arny Krueger has (or had) some very carefully produced harmonic distortion music samples, in percent increments to compare with the original files - which should be compared in ABX software. These files are (or used to be) on his site. I am not sure if they are still up - but it would be very useful to people to listen to these various files using ABX software if they are still online.

-Chris


----------



## DrWho

I've been doing some more research and there seems to be a lot of studies showing ~3% THD around the limit of audibility....

That doesn't jive with my personal experiences though. I can think of so many systems or comparisons that can be made where most everything is the same except the distortion - but there is definitely a trend to the differences in sound.

Maybe it's the IMD...haven't come across any audibility thresholds on that yet - and it might jive with the increased audibility with "more complex" signals...


----------



## avaserfi

IMD isn't much more an issue. Were you using music as your playback source or sine waves? There is a drastic difference between the two. If you were using music it is likely the case that some other confound effected the outcome of your experience.


----------



## DrWho

Oh, so now 3% frequency modulation distortion is acceptable now too? Yikes, what was PWK thinking when he published 0.35% as being sufficient to be annoying (that's not even a limit of audibility) :O That was way back in 1958...

Btw, the source material is ultimately irrelevant. My tests were done listening to music, but you're right, it's way easier to hear with sine waves. It's certainly not unheard of for modern music to contain some very sine-like waveforms.

Another thought to consider....

Let's say a 0.1% THD increase was the result of some other problem that is without a doubt perceived as audible. To argue that 0.1% THD as being inaudible is totally irrelevant because the THD increase is really a byproduct of another audible problem. If getting rid of that other problem lowers the THD, then the THD is just an indirect method of identifying it (just like dips in frequency response can be used to identify reflections). However, I think it very fair to extrapolate that lower THD requires that "other problems" also be lower....just like less reflections result in a flatter frequency response.

For instance, how much THD do you need to have in an inductor before its core saturation effects become audible? It's actually a very small number...


----------



## WmAx

DrWho said:


> Oh, so now 3% frequency modulation distortion is acceptable now too? Yikes, what was PWK thinking when he published 0.35% as being sufficient to be annoying (that's not even a limit of audibility) :O That was way back in 1958...


There are sources of distortion that the range of 0.3% lies within a threshold for sensitive listeners. This would be the complex modulation distortion created by a driver simultaneously operating well out of it's linear motor range and reproducing frequencies short enough in wave length to be appreciably phase modulated by the low frequency large excursion movement in the driver at the same time. A sum of various things resulting in a particular type of annoying distortion, but the primary one appearing to be the phase modulation distortion. There was a study by Klippel on this real world driver operation problem - and a large open double blinded test. The simulation especially audible on high quality monitor headphones. But this type of distortion is prevented by using drivers with decent quality motor in a sufficiently narrow band to avoid this phenomenon.


> Let's say a 0.1% THD increase was the result of some other problem that is without a doubt perceived as audible. To argue that 0.1% THD as being inaudible is totally irrelevant because the THD increase is really a byproduct of another audible problem. If getting rid of that other problem lowers the THD, then the THD is just an indirect method of identifying it (just like dips in frequency response can be used to identify reflections). However, I think it very fair to extrapolate that lower THD requires that "other problems" also be lower....just like less reflections result in a flatter frequency response.


The only way to really know is to do an in depth analysis of the harmonic structure of the distortion that occurred. And if the simulation method was digital, then IME, other things can interject high order non linear distortions that are unexpected. For example, Adobe Audtion has a fairly sophisticated distortion generator that can be used to specifically structure the amount and harmonic structure of distortion to be added to any signal. However, the filter is flawed, and will add quantization-like noise to the quiet threshold sections of signals run through it that made the signal audible distort even at very low levels of measured THD.



> For instance, how much THD do you need to have in an inductor before its core saturation effects become audible? It's actually a very small number...


What is the harmonic structure of this THD? Of course, even relatively small levels of very high order distortion can quickly become audible. A typical high quality speaker will not have high order distortion of any substantial level. Nor will a high quality solid state amplifier, where high order harmonics should lie well beyond -100 dB, typically under or at the residual of the noise floor.

-Chris


----------



## Angelo888

at my forum you will find many designs, that might inspire :

http://www.audiovoice-acoustics.com/forum/

see the gallery :

http://www.audiovoice-acoustics.com/forum/showthread.php?t=168


----------

