Powered speakers show audiophiles are confused

@kota1 wrote:

Shane Lee was saying that the three ton riser they were sitting on was lifted by that beast. I think you could see the stunned look on peoples faces in the demo, like they just saw Jaws in real life.

That’s some immense air shifting power for sure!

@closenplay --

Thank you.

@thespeakerdude wrote:

The realities of path length and flare angle means that for a practical sub-woofer, a vented box will always have the advantage at the lowest octaves. The horn is significantly more efficiency at higher bass, but at the deepest, it is not.

Vented will have the advantage wrt. size/extension ratio, yes. Horn sub extension, certainly a traditional front loaded horn while maintain high efficiency and actual loading in its range, will be very big indeed. 20Hz flat, meaning a tune slightly lower, should translate into some 30cf. volume - a behemoth in most domestic environments. So, a FLH provides extension and high eff. as the design and size allows (i.e.: horn path length and mouth area), but with a "practical" demand - debatable in importance and a variable in relation to who you’re asking - will be limited to having high eff. from some 30-40Hz on up. I’ve chosen the tapped horn variant to get a more effective size/extension ratio, although it mostly comes down to higher eff. in the lowest octave and a following steeper roll-off below tune, while also limiting upper extension compared to a FLH. Another important take-away with the tapped horn variant is woofer cone excursion minima at the tune, whereas the sealed chamber-fitted woofer in a FLH will have maximum excursion at the tune. This matters wrt. distortion in the lower range, and also up into the central bass. In reality I could live happily with either a FLH or a TH, but in my particular context has chosen the latter as the most fitting option.

Why then something so large for what is still a relative impediment wrt. extension and, most predominantly with the tapped horn, is bandwidth limited to boot? Because of their sound. Few have experienced horn-loaded bass in their home, and so few can really comment on the perceived nature of true horn-loaded bass here, but suffice to say they sound different compared to direct radiation bass/sub solutions - and by horn-loaded I mean both FLH and TH iterations, not that they sound completely alike either. Bass isn’t just bass, and even smoothly implemented via DBA and room corrected these differences shine through.

If you are recreating the Saturn V, you need the energy at the lowest frequencies, 20Hz and below. You are better off vented. For pure music, you don’t have a lot below 40Hz and dropping quick, horn is great for a sub. I realized the Saturn V was both hyperbole, but also representational. You want to recreate life’s audible events.

You’d be surprised perhaps knowing how much the sheer volume of bass, cone-to-air loading efficiency and central to upper bass fundamentals matter with an attempt at getting a feel for the Saturn V’s blast impact. For sure, getting the infra-sonics in place is of importance for a more complete experience, but for them to really matter this low down you’d need truly prodigious air radiation area. I once heard a pair of SVS SB16-Ultra fire off with the Saturn V launch in the great documentary ’Apollo 11’ on Blu-ray and, believe me, they fell utterly flat - even with a 5-10Hz lower tune - compared to my TH subs in this scene. The SVS’s dug deeper, yes, but the sheer visceral feel for the immense size and the air echoing wallop and "cracking" sound those Saturn V rockets could produce just reached a completely different level via the tapped horns, whereas the SVS’s mostly just rumbled and shook at ground level while never providing the same feel for the size and impact of it all. My TH subs are over 4x the size compared to the SVS's, and so they better make a difference - which they most certainly do in this respect as well. 

That’s fair. Essentially rock concert level, somewhat close to the stage.

I am glad you don’t listen to it regular. As much as I love live music, I don’t say yes to the frequent invites I get any more for amplified events and even for the last long while, I have generally enjoyed with ear plugs. I take enough of a "hit" professionally. Have to respect your ears.

Absolutely, got to protect our ears as best as we can.

@donavabdear can comment on this better, but the target playback levels, we could call it the intended levels, are far below what your system is capable of.

Dialed-in reference volume, with the dialogue as the point of reference, has the peaks sit at an occasional 105-110dB’s, although that’s not typical.

10 seats out, 105 would be the max, and usually lower. If you were up on the stage, it could hit 120 with some pieces having extended 110db+ sections. This is starting to become a big issue, starting initially in Europe. Due to the amount of practicing, the musicians total exposure can be at ear damaging levels, especially in the brass section, even worse than percussion though percussion can have higher peaks. Lots of talk w.r.t. regulation, creating practice spaces with more distance between performers, positional changes to reduce total exposure, etc.

Musicians are taking a wild SPL exposure here, with severe hearing damage to follow. Regulations would be most welcome to alleviate these issues.

@kingharold --

That’s some journey on your way to audio bliss - kudos. 16th order slopes takes steepness to a new level, with some even going with 32nd order iterations. By comparison I’m now only using LR4 slopes..! And a great looking system for sure.

Thus I have an active system with drivers and amplifiers of my own choosing with every element being easy to change. I think I have the best of both worlds. Besides that the system is not ugly.

That’s indeed an advantageous take-away with an outboard active setup, to have this freedom of component implementation throughout to accommodate one’s specific preferences, while still avoiding the passive cross-over altogether - all-horn at that.

@donavabdear wrote:

@kingharold Thanks for the story, you make me really want to seek out horns. Glad you understand active speaker synergy, I feel like it is a step into audio reality away from arrogance. I just can’t imagine someone paying so much money for speakers/crossovers and amps that aren’t designed for each other. You seem like exactly the opposite of a person who simply pays a lot of money for flashy audio equipment without considering the objective details.

But that’s just the thing with @kingharold’s setup; the components entailed weren’t specifically designed for each other, but rather carefully implemented after an arduous trial-and-error approach with different hardware combos, if with the aid of professional assistance. This may come down to the same a MFR is essentially pursuing, i.e.: careful implementation, but it goes to show - by virtue of an individual + guests being extremely pleased with the sonic outcome - that an outboard active setup can be a highly successful venture, and with no limits imposed wrt. the chosen speaker principle and following size requirements.

@phusis i think you made a great point about what I said about @kingharold horn system with years of trial and error concerning amps with the proper speakers. What I'm preaching is the inconsistencies when audiophiles read a TAS article and spend $200k hoping their system is great. Audiophiles can do good research look at the physics, talk to people with more experience and then get the system wrong. That's ok getting things wrong really only enhances our lives getting things wrong for the right reason is life. We are not dealing with understood hard science in sound, microphones, speakers, etc. there will always be room for experimentation in the sound world.

A common theme in in the audiophile world that is so wrong is assuming that the sound engineer doing the recording and mixing is an incredibly dedicated artist who    is painstakingly agonizing about every detail of the music. They are often on a time crunch like everyone else there are always many many compromises. Audiophiles are like people who watch House on TV they think the hospital assigned 3 doctors to work on your health problem, nope sound engineers are under the stress of business, time, and outrageously requests by artists who have no idea what they are demanding and will do detrimental things to the music. 
Also microphones and original recordings aren't all they're cracked up to be even the best microphones aren't adequate to record very dynamic sounds like a gun shot, keys dangling, or a Saturn 5 rocket. I always used at least 2 or 3 mics for even simple gun shots usually full load blanks that are still much quieter than real gun shots one mic for the direct sound with the gain very low so the signal won't over modulate, another mic to record the first large reflection of the sound with a bit higher gain then another mic farther away to record the echo with hi win to give the acoustic space a little life. All these mics had to have a gain structure that assumed the signal was too dynamic for the mic/recorder and would be put together later in the recording process. There are no predefined levels to set the mics to you have to listen to the space and then guess on how loud the gun / sound is. Even the boom operator who are micing the shot may be holding the mic at a strange angle to accommodate a shadow or an actor who doesn't want the boom in their eye line, lots of compromise even on the biggest movies and recording studios always. 

It cracks me up when I see a thread and a HT enthusiast is going on about capturing the "directors intent". You have no idea what amount of time, effort and budget were devoted to the blueray vs the theatrical release. I can guarantee it was MUCH less compared to the theatrical mix.

@donavabdear I find your comments interesting about movies/video. We hear tell over in music about the procedures in location sound. I am solely focused on recording studios and I do not find that to be true there. Al Schmidt, one of the better known "good" engineers (Diana Krall for example) had a story floating about him spending an entire day getting a good snare drum sound. Knowing him, I believe it, he was old school (you MOVE THE MICROPHONE you don’t use EQ). Some of the newer guys using plug ins and zero analog gear are different, but most of their work is not audiophile targeted work. George Massenburg is another one, loves analog, very particular about everything in the studio-his recordings are pristine. The guys I know in between, the ones that work a lot and have multiple projects going all the time, work to get "a sound" Chris Issacs sound in Wicked Game, I know him and he would work all day to get a "cool" sound-not necessarily an audiophile one. Killers Hot Fuss was another, I know him well and he used a lot of mid level end gear to get the sound he was looking for. But that’s the point, these guys are looking for a "sound" that is unique.

Brad

 

spent an en most of the music recording guys I know, fin that

@lonemountain In production sound 90% of all our energy is to accurately record the actors dialog, we would like to use a boom mic like the Sennheiser MKH-50 all the time but when the stupid directors (yes I'm still bitter) shoot wide and tight shots at the same time we can't get a boom mic in and we have to rely on hidden mics or lav mics hidden inside the actors clothing. The boom operator memorizes all the lines and points the mic at each actor as close as possible to the camera frame line without entering into the shot or throwing a shadow on anything in the frame. The mixer blends all the microphones booms and lavs raising each mic when the actor speaks, it's a lot like playing an instrument that is the actors, we try to minimize background and any noise that would interfere with the dialog.