Khorns Time Alignment

[ClaudeJ1]

One more comment. Visiting Danley's headquarters and auditioning their products there will give you little insight as to what the speakers are capable of or sound like for home use. The setup there is to show how the speakers perform and their array-ability under difficult large room acoustical conditions where there is a lot of reverberation to interfere with the direct sound. If you really want to hear what they sound like for "audiophile" conditions, its kind of the same as for the Klipschorn or Jubilee. You'll have to find someone with a dedicated room and a properly set up system and associated equipment to hear what they're really capable of. So yes, time aligning Khorn's or Jubliee's can and do make a difference which IMO is for the better. A speaker that has all their great qualities but takes it a step further, acting as one full range single point source that is phase coherent takes everything to the next level. As always, your mileage may vary.

 

Or you could do what I did, which is take the PLUNGE and buy some used ones. I drove to Buffalo to get mine. The horn stack in my Avatar with twin DTS-10's below 50 Hz. driven by a 2- channel amp with mono ".1" input for music and LFE with Audyssey XT/32 was the best sound I ever had. In fact, my audiophile speaker builder friend with really good ears still thinks it was better than what I have now. However, since the used units I got (TD-1's turned sideways, similar to SH-46's)were beat up pretty bad by wattage and gross EQ wise in a nightclub application, they did not measure as flat as the center Runt. Right now I'm relying heavily on Audyssey to clean up the anomalies, but regardless they do sound amazingly good. While I have to have a "head in vise" sweet spot, like I did with the K-402's in a different city, it's the most rock solid center image on voice recordings I've ever heard. The attack on piano is the most lifelike as well. So, while I can't say for sure it's "better," I can say it's as good and different. Drum skins sound more detailed and I'm pretty sure it's phase coherent related.

[ClaudeJ1]

 

Actually I have read the patent. So all the acoustic sources are placed in a "blender" and comes out coherent. Linear phase is a misnomer. A consistent phase curve that "goes down" is the best can do. Just measure acoustic phase of a single driver.

 

 

Looking at the design I would have to be concerned that over such a wide frequency bandwidth design that at some frequencies there will be destructive interference based on spacing of the various acoustic sources. I don't believe there is a free lunch here but I would love to hear these systems for myself.

 

 

miketn  

 

Mike, you have been privy and have commented on my progress (or lack thereof) over the last 7 years. I'm very confident that you would approve of the phase coherence and amazing quality of the sound in my Sound Physics Lab TD-1's, which were the ones used for the Patent drawings by Danley. They do sound amazing. But I'm also very confident that you would keep what you have. It's like a Ferrari owner who appreciates his neighbor's Porsche!! They both go over 200 MPH, but with a different power train positioning.

Edited September 23, 2014 by ClaudeJ1

[mark1101]

 

One more comment. Visiting Danley's headquarters and auditioning their products there will give you little insight as to what the speakers are capable of or sound like for home use. The setup there is to show how the speakers perform and their array-ability under difficult large room acoustical conditions where there is a lot of reverberation to interfere with the direct sound. If you really want to hear what they sound like for "audiophile" conditions, its kind of the same as for the Klipschorn or Jubilee. You'll have to find someone with a dedicated room and a properly set up system and associated equipment to hear what they're really capable of. So yes, time aligning Khorn's or Jubliee's can and do make a difference which IMO is for the better. A speaker that has all their great qualities but takes it a step further, acting as one full range single point source that is phase coherent takes everything to the next level. As always, your mileage may vary.

 

Or you could do what I did, which is take the PLUNGE and buy some used ones. I drove to Buffalo to get mine. The horn stack in my Avatar with twin DTS-10's below 50 Hz. driven by a 2- channel amp with mono ".1" input for music and LFE with Audyssey XT/32 was the best sound I ever had. In fact, my audiophile speaker builder friend with really good ears still thinks it was better than what I have now. However, since the used units I got (TD-1's turned sideways, similar to SH-46's)were beat up pretty bad by wattage and gross EQ wise in a nightclub application, they did not measure as flat as the center Runt. Right now I'm relying heavily on Audyssey to clean up the anomalies, but regardless they do sound amazingly good. While I have to have a "head in vise" sweet spot, like I did with the K-402's in a different city, it's the most rock solid center image on voice recordings I've ever heard. The attack on piano is the most lifelike as well. So, while I can't say for sure it's "better," I can say it's as good and different. Drum skins sound more detailed and I'm pretty sure it's phase coherent related.

 

These comments mirror some of the negatives people speak of Danley...........they have a "sound" to them.  While they behave as Danley says they do and it coudl be a revelation in even coverage I still don't think they sound any better head-to-head than others who have been in the bussiness a long time like Klipsch and JBL.

 

He's got volume and his patents.............I still can't find a single customer testimonial about sound quality, fidelity, extension.

[ClaudeJ1]

These comments mirror some of the negatives people speak of Danley...........they have a "sound" to them.  While they behave as Danley says they do and it coudl be a revelation in even coverage I still don't think they sound any better head-to-head than others who have been in the bussiness a long time like Klipsch and JBL.   He's got volume and his patents.............I still can't find a single customer testimonial about sound quality, fidelity, extension.

 

All speakers have "a sound to them" in a given space and listener postition. Otherwise we would only need ONE speaker in the whole world. None of my comments are negative at all, and most people on the internet don't know what they are talking about when they make comments of any kind. Especially those who have never owned them or heard them at all.

 

In some regards, they do sound better. The imaging is superior. Mine are 60x40 dispersion and not as refined as Danley's latest offerings 12 years later. They are in a radically different space with the same subs and electronics as a 90x60 K-402 horn stack with Quarter Pies on the bottom. The main thing is that they are a 3-way passive network with double 12" woofers in a horn that is SMALLER than the K-402 alone and the TD-1's cover from 60-18Khz, which is amazing in itself. The only thing that makes them anything similar to my former stack is the B&C tweeter at the Apex of the thing. Plus, I'm now forced to sit about 3 feet closer (9 feet vs. 12 before).

 

So if you factor in the sound quality for the small size, it should be compared to a Heresy rather than a giant stack like yours or my old "mini stack" with the Quarter Pies.

 

Even in this smaller form factor, I feel that I have not given up ANY sound quality at all and I'm thrilled with the sound quality and pinpoint imaging. Even if I stick my face in the front of the horn, it sounds like a single sound source for the entire band.

 

The sound has all of the "micro detail" that I had come to love about the K-402/1133/DE-250/QSC top end. Female vocals are still as lush with the "she is here" feeling. But I still can't expect the natural bass of these things to be on par with my Quarter Pie bass horn, which only gave up 5 Hz. at the bottom, as compared to your full size MWMs. That would really be unfair. Besides size, if I factor what little money I spent for them, it's no contest, which it isn't anyway, but you seem to make it so. Everyone that has heard them so far is amazed. Had a non-technical friend (Klipsch owner also) hear them last week and I had to unplug the center speaker connector for him to believe that speaker was off because the vocals were so perfectly centered in a 17 foot wide soundstage. This wall of sound is achieved with only two speakers and sub, so it's impressive that way alone. 

 

If I ever find the need in the future, I can always rebuild my stack with the K-402's/1133 which is the best mid horn/driver combo I've ever owned or heard, bar none. I can always re-do it as finances allow. But for the moment, I don't feel the need to do anything else. Based on my space constraints (which you don't have), I have the best system I can possible hear at this time.

Edited September 23, 2014 by ClaudeJ1

[mark1101]

Claude,  you could be Danley's first customer testimonial, and you don't even own the good ones yet?

 

As I've said our church group has heard Danley's in several places.  They are all over in the churches around us.  No one thinks anything about that stuff..........that it's anything special. These are all musicians by the way.   I don't hear that there is some fantastic difference like you do, and I am pretty sure we have heard some of his latest and greatest.

 

So that's just my opinion.

 

I am a Klipsch guy.  I have always been and I will always be.  I don't want any Danley speakers in my house this week. 

[jcmusic]

Not to change the subject or anything but, the title of this thread is Khorn Time Alignment. Do you think we can get back to that? I have Klipsch Khorns and that is what I am interested in conversing about not another brand of speakers of any type. Thanks.

[Chief bonehead]

Sorry. You are right. Time alignment in a khorn is doable. But most people stop there. And forget the all important phase response of each driver/horn combo at the desired acoustic crossover point. And then once you get that info then you have to make sure you are still in the correct time relationship for that freq. in other words you could rotate the position of the freq thru delay and get a flat curve but actually be on a cycle behind that will be audible in transients which is what music is.

I have done it in years passed and the best description I can use is that it "tightened" the sound of the khorn. Well worth the effort.

[ClaudeJ1]

Claude,  you could be Danley's first customer testimonial, and you don't even own the good ones yet?

 

As I've said our church group has heard Danley's in several places.  They are all over in the churches around us.  No one thinks anything about that stuff..........that it's anything special. These are all musicians by the way.   I don't hear that there is some fantastic difference like you do, and I am pretty sure we have heard some of his latest and greatest.

 

So that's just my opinion.

 

I am a Klipsch guy.  I have always been and I will always be.  I don't want any Danley speakers in my house this week. 

Of course you are a Klipsch guy. We all are, but sometimes it's good to step out and experience other things. I even like some direct radiator speakers I have heard. BTW, Danleys in the home are not the same as Danleys in a church. It really doesn't matter to me what other people listen to anyhow. I'm having fun re discovering my favorite music each time I make a change to my setup. Glad to hear you think you have reached the end of the line. It's all good, but there something amazing, sound wise, and a short distance away, about a wide band point source with constant directivity over a wider band than is not achievable by conventional/traditional means such as your setup.

Edited September 25, 2014 by ClaudeJ1

[ClaudeJ1]

Not to change the subject or anything but, the title of this thread is Khorn Time Alignment. Do you think we can get back to that? I have Klipsch Khorns and that is what I am interested in conversing about not another brand of speakers of any type. Thanks.

sorry, I got suckered out of the original post. over and out.

[russ69]

Sorry. You are right. Time alignment in a khorn is doable. But most people stop there. And forget the all important phase response of each driver/horn combo at the desired acoustic crossover point. And then once you get that info then you have to make sure you are still in the correct time relationship for that freq. in other words you could rotate the position of the freq thru delay and get a flat curve but actually be on a cycle behind that will be audible in transients which is what music is.

I have done it in years passed and the best description I can use is that it "tightened" the sound of the khorn. Well worth the effort.

I understand what phase timing at a fixed crossover point is. Given that most designs ignore the issue completely, I'm not sure how important it is. Nor have I ever had the chance to listen, correct and listen again. My jury is still out. Some guys say they can hear absolute phase differences but I never have.

[Chris A]

...Given that most designs ignore the issue completely, I'm not sure how important it is. Nor have I ever had the chance to listen, correct and listen again. My jury is still out.

 

I think you can bank on hearing a significant difference--especially if you're a planar kind of guy that likes to hear details.  I've heard time misalignments corrected and I will never go back to using passive crossovers that cannot correct time misalignments. 

 

Clearly, time misalignment issues weren't corrected for many years because there wasn't a good way to do it (in horn-loaded loudspeakers), then it was expensive to correct when digital actives first hit the market.

 

But nowadays it's actually cheaper and more effective to correct using higher quality (and reusable from application to application) active crossovers than the older method of using expensive passive crossover parts to do crossing over while trying to get the phase right using cut-and-try methods in custom one-offs: that old process now seems insane to me in comparison.  Dial it in with an active and move on to listening pleasure.

 

Some guys say they can hear absolute phase differences but I never have.

 

I've got a theory that what they're actually hearing is really AM distortion of direct radiating drivers which is different in push vs. pull directions.  If this weren't a true statement, PPSL bass bin designs wouldn't sound any better than conventional vented boxes.

Edited September 24, 2014 by Chris A

[kg4guy]

Claude,  you could be Danley's first customer testimonial, and you don't even own the good ones yet?

 

As I've said our church group has heard Danley's in several places.  They are all over in the churches around us.  No one thinks anything about that stuff..........that it's anything special. These are all musicians by the way.   I don't hear that there is some fantastic difference like you do, and I am pretty sure we have heard some of his latest and greatest.

 

So that's just my opinion.

 

I am a Klipsch guy.  I have always been and I will always be.  I don't want any Danley speakers in my house this week. 

Not sure about that he has the td-1 it is nearly the same speaker as the SH46 as the Runt is nearly the same as th SH95 in fact the Runt goes flatter lower than the SH95 the down size is the SPL is lower as a result. After running all four of my Runts together today I must say they are simply amazing sounding I would get a pair of SH50's if I didn't already have 3 TH118 subs.

[WMcD]

 

I've read many debates on various forums regarding choosing a crossover point between drivers with what seems to be very little regard to driver performance

Here is another thread on that issue, and one reason why I believe that the Jubilee sounds as good as it does (and there are other reasons why the Jubilee sounds so good, but that one reason will do for now), since it has one crossover point at ~425 Hz, which is just below the interaural directionality frequency--governed by the distance between the two human eardrums, corresponding to about 500 Hz. 

 

There is but one driver and one horn above that frequency in the Jubilee so its "phase coherence" (group delay) characteristics are basically unsurpassed above that point.

 

Note that the point of greatest aural sensitivity is about 3.5-4.5 KHz, found also by looking at the now proverbial Fletcher-Munson (equal loudness) curves.

 

 

 

Chris

 

 

One thought of mine is as follows.

 

PWK wanted to not put the crossover point at 3.5 kHz and he said that it where the ear is most sensitive, as indeed the F-M curve says.  (Though I've lost track of his comment in print.  Anyone?)

 

E-V did cross over there with the T-35 and midrange IIRC.

 

It seems to me that PWK was saying that interference effects at the crossover point were the problem and it is better to move it up to 6 kHz as could be achieved with his K-400 and perhaps other mid horns.

 

In my view though, the major interference effect would be a big dip from destructive interference.  It could go down to zero.  Of course we get about a 3 dB peak from constructive interference -- which to some ways of thinking is not very audible.

 

So, we have to think about what the F-M curve is showing us.  It seems to me it is showing us that at 3.5 kHz our hearing is the least sensitive to a dip from destructive interference for the very reason that hearing is most sensitive.  That is because we still perceive low acoustic levels. 

 

My conclusion is that 3.5 kHz is the best place to put a crossover frequency because we are least likely to hear the dip.  IOW, we hear the output fairly well despite the dip!

 

- - - -

 

I'll point out that LR probably can give a good response.  However, the curves of the responses of the drivers have to be accomplished at the acoustic outputs, not just the crossover outputs.

 

- - - -

 

As a last comment: group delay is not the same as time delay, even though both are expressed in units of time.

 

WMcD

[ClaudeJ1]

Sorry. You are right. Time alignment in a khorn is doable. But most people stop there. And forget the all important phase response of each driver/horn combo at the desired acoustic crossover point. And then once you get that info then you have to make sure you are still in the correct time relationship for that freq. in other words you could rotate the position of the freq thru delay and get a flat curve but actually be on a cycle behind that will be audible in transients which is what music is.

I have done it in years passed and the best description I can use is that it "tightened" the sound of the khorn. Well worth the effort.

Am I correct in assuming it's not as simple as using the "vanilla" Xover points of a AA network at 400/6K Hz. and just using time delay based on distance alone with an L-R 4 filter?

[jcmusic]

I would think that depends on what you like, or what you think is correct. I use the (vanilla) cover points as a starting point in my cover.My concern ends up being where the acoustic cover is after time alignment.

[Chief bonehead]

Choosing crossover points should involve a little logic. And acoustic crossovers are far more important than electrical crossovers. My method is to let the acoustic components tell me where they liked to be crossed over. That usually involves quite a bit of data.

[Chris A]

My method is to let the acoustic components tell me where they liked to be crossed over. That usually involves quite a bit of data.

Besides looking at FR on-axis, matching off-axis polars and phase (I assume that you don't want the drivers' phases to be going over a cliff at crossover frequencies, right?), what other data do you look at?  Harmonics?

Edited September 25, 2014 by Chris A

[jcmusic]

Choosing crossover points should involve a little logic. And acoustic crossovers are far more important than electrical crossovers. My method is to let the acoustic components tell me where they liked to be crossed over. That usually involves quite a bit of data.

Exactly the acoustic Xover is where things happen according to your room for the most part. Unless they are influenced by some other application.

[Chief bonehead]

Distortion In general. Several kinds of distortion. Etcs are also important This along with the other things you mentioned can help greatly with passives because it can help determine what order filter to use. This info is also very helpful with actives.

Then I listen to the speaker. Not the music. Ths music must be familiar to you and it must be recorded well. Does it sound like I thought? like it should? That is why overlap in all these tests is important giving you the ability to choose other crossover points. What I usually find if you did your homework correctly the acoustic devices will reward you with great sound. Then it's just a matter of "salt and pepper".

[Chris A]

Thanks! 

 

When I got the Beyma CP25 for the Belle, I experimented with crossover points, and decided that I could run the crossover point down to 2.5 KHz.  I had heard the midrange horn having a bit of trouble from 2.5-6 KHz--to my ears.  I could hear the difference easily using the Dx38 to simply change the crossover point.  After I decided to stick with this crossover frequency, I dialed in the delay and the EQ.  It sounded even better (between the Jubs).

 

I also ran the crossover on the bass bin up to 560 Hz (using 24 dB/octave L-R filters), further reducing the bandwidth of the midrange.  It sounded different, but the midrange timbre issue disappeared, and the dip in the on-axis FR plot at about that point disappeared.  Of course the tradeoff is beaming, slightly increased harmonics, and greater diffraction on the two Belle bass bin mouths, but I found that the trade was still better.

 

All this was made possible with an active digital crossover (an EV Dx38), REW software running on my laptop, and  calibrated microphone/mixer. 

 

I dare say that doing this without the active crossover and the now-inexpensive test/analysis software/hardware would have been much less successful.

Edited September 25, 2014 by Chris A