Speaker sensitivity vs SQ

@atmasphere --

The T-1 has a 250Hz horn, using a 4" compression driver that is field coil powered. The diaphragm is made of beryllium and employs a Kapton surround, which is how it goes so low without breakups. I don’t know the spec on the T-1 but I do know that the 3" diaphragm in the T-3 has its first breakup at 35KHz. The breakups are a pretty big deal; I got to hear what the regular TAD diaphragm did compared to the CAL unit and it was not subtle- much smoother!

The combination of larger VC diameters, beryllium diaphragms and being field coil powered sounds like a recipe for sonic excellence. That’s next level rocket stage for sure..

They are very interesting speakers and IMHO very nice looking. It is a world away from what I deal with.

My approach to subwoofers is totally different to Phusis. His are 7 dB more sensitive but much larger 20 cf to my 1.9 cf ! I have to use four of them to create a line array and each one has two 12" drivers in it. They require power and a computer to control them but they will go flat down to 18 Hz. The enclosures being small and cylindrical are very stiff and the cabinet resonance is way above the operating range and very well damped I can't even see it running them full range. They break up at 2000 Hz. Actually, I should say "it" not "they" as there is only the mule built. The idea was to minimize enclosure vibration and resonance using woodworker friendly materials. The woofers are in phase and located at opposite ends of a 28" cylinder. Their reactive forces cancel out keeping the affair from shaking. The walls vary between 1 7/16 to almost 2". I have not weighed it yet but it is darn heavy. Definitely a two person lift. Now I have to build the other three and finish them all in polyester satin black. They should have no problem keeping up with the Sound Labs.
Psyched to say the least. ESLs are so simple relative to other designs. There really is not much to them. Working around their limitations is pretty easy. You just need the right amp and you have to take the low bass away from them. They will do it but it so compromises them.

Community made the best horn designs even today we haven't equaled what they offered during the 1970s. Their multi cells are by far the most advanced on earth the leviathan and the radials all not bettered by modern designs. I have been beta testing for a few companies they know I have many horn types to use the horns they made to go with there new designs are just based on older designs but are smaller. So while it is possible to design better horns today we don't because of the size and costs to build them.

Most speakers of low sensitivity have more elaborate crossovers to even out the frequency response.  It is just an engineering tradeoff, but since more power is needed, anyway, better drivers, also of low sensitivity can be used.  When I switched from a 200 wpc Phase Linear amp pushing stacked Advents, I was in heaven, at least until I heard a Threshold amp and Audire amp drive really good speakers,

@mijostyn --

Just looked over at your profile, and you have an impressive set-up from what I can assess (haven’t heard it, obviously, but I’m sure it’s sonically extremely capable). You wrote "Sound Labs" being your main ESL’s, but the profile reads Acoustat’s - which is it? A friend of mine have a pair of older Acoustat’s, smaller than yours (can’t remember the model number), and they’re very coherent sounding, transparent and informative. Having a single transducer cover the entire range from 100-20kHz is an impressive, and not least an important feat when done well; being ESL’s I can only imagine that it is. Moreover being a line source (as such) from floor to ceiling adds to their traits.

Personally and over time I’ve never been fully convinced or taken the type of presentation from the line sources I’ve heard, but as executed in your case, with subs augmentation and the ESL’s relieved below 100Hz to boot, I may feel differently about it. You don’t shy away from cone area with the subs either, and with lots of power at hand from your QSC’s bodes well for headroom and clean bass. Have you tried spreading out your subs DBA-style? Not meant as an advocation of mine, but just curious what you’ve come to find here, in case.

I can certainly relate to where you’re getting at with your set-up imagining a large, enveloping and coherent sound field that’s fairly uninhibited LF-wise as well. It’s not at all unlike what I’m after, though quite obviously very differently executed.

@johnk --

Community made the best horn designs even today we haven’t equaled what they offered during the 1970s. Their multi cells are by far the most advanced on earth the leviathan and the radials all not bettered by modern designs. I have been beta testing for a few companies they know I have many horn types to use the horns they made to go with there new designs are just based on older designs but are smaller. So while it is possible to design better horns today we don’t because of the size and costs to build them.

It’s the recurring roadblock for sound reproduction in a home environment: size. JMLC horns (with the proper calculated horn profiles, that aren’t mostly used) are great, I find, and don’t skimp on size. The upcoming bigger EV horns of mine (HP9040) mayn’t dance with the best, but I’d wager they bring about advantages (compared to smaller, more modern horns) precisely because of their size and controlling directivity as low as they do. Getting a closer coverage pattern match over the cross-over range arguably is one of the "macro parameters," and being successful seeking out and attaining others as well is what it’s about, basically - to me, at least. Size restrictions keep one from hitting many of said parameters, but more than cost considerations it appears size itself (and the change in design narrative) is the primary obstacle.