KH's & subs / Help sought...

[Prana-Bindu]

It's all subjective unless you can prove it? That's like saying, "It's all nacho cheese sauce unless you can prove that it's anything else." Why does a perceived object HAVE to be labeled as varying in itself from interaction with subject to subject if there is no description of the object available in the vocabulary of proof? Presumptuous.... Solipsism, eh?

I've noticed a difference in the dynamic capabilities of the tweeters in my RF-3's and their woofers. At this point, in fact, I consider that difference to be the weakest link in my system (besides the room problems). I totally love the forward sound of horns for much of my favorite music, but I can't stand the marriage of horns and woofers in my RF-3's. Perhaps the addition of a midrange horn will solve many of my problems, but the difference is most apparent in the lower octaves that my RF-3's can reach. I would love to stick with horns if I could get adequate (read: linear down to the lowest music usually reaches) low frequency extension, but it seems that the project of getting that kind of extension from bass horns requires some architectural commitments (corner horns or huge rooms for huge horns). I wish I could make such commitments.

Unless y'all can keep me in the fold, I suspect I'll be going for some woofers when the upgrade comes along. Maybe some Aerial Acoustics 7's with their primo sub even further down the road? Sorry dudes, but the difference is too apparent to ignore.

I am, however, planning on getting the Perpetual Technologies P-1A digital correction engine sometime in the not too distant future. The unit offers speaker correction algorithms as well. I wonder if such their algorithm would correct the speed discrepancies? Hmmmm.... Of course, I've read of people identifying more than speed differences between horns and woofers. I think I'm only hearing speed differences right now, but I'd like to know more about other differences. Are they tonal? what does "tonal" mean? are there huge differences in decay time? what else is there?

All help is appreciated greatly.

------------------

May the bridges we burn light our way....

[forresthump]

In fairness there have been some attempts to measure transient response from speakers. But I guess since differences in speaker "speed" are largely indistinguishable and or SUBJECT to each individual's hearing and processing, they don't go to the trouble and expense of doing scientific tests for speaker speed. The only way to convincingly attempt to prove even a theory is with scientific data. Until one provides that it IS subjective. Maybe the best route is statistics on opinion. I haven't even seen that.

------------------

go forth & hump the world

[mike stehr]

Why would you care about statistical opinions?

Say everyone's opinions favor a certain product.

95% of everyone thinks this speaker is god,

taken from statistics on opinions.

Of course, all these folks would have to be in the

same room, same gear, set-up the same, all feeling

like they are in a listening mood.

Otherwise, it wouldn't matter.

Even then, you could be that 5% that thinks the

speaker sucks.

The whole concept of audio is subjective, just

like the musical material it reproduces.

What do numbers matter, when bottom line, your

ears make the choice? (And not Thears.)

THANX!

[forresthump]

Mike Thanks for the support on this debate. I was being sarcastic about the statistics. But they dont even have that error prone evidence. Just their judgements like this sub is slow and this sub is fast. And then which one can blow their horn the loudest. Maybe their heads are slow. Who knows.

------------------

go forth & hump the world

[Prana-Bindu]

Just speculating here, but I would think that the speed of a horn or woofer is a measure of the time it takes for either to get the wave started on its way to our ears from the moment of first vibration. I don't know anything about how speakers work, but I am under the impression that the horn uses some kind of vibrating diaphragm at the beginning of the throat and the shape of the horn amplifies the small vibrations of that teeny tiny diaphragm (through resonance like blowing air over the mouth of a bottle?). In a woofer, on the other hand, the diaphragm is on its own and uses no resonance or anything else other than itself to add volume to the sound. It makes sense, in such a description, that a horn would be faster, because it would be easier to move the teeny tiny diaphragm than the 8-15" diaphragms of typical woofers. In other words, the teeny tiny diaphragm does not have to have the kind of spacial extension a woofer has to have to make the same wave. Of course, I may have just woven a nice little fairy tale out of my total ignorance of speaker technology....

We all need to be careful in how we use the word "subjective". Every and any thing we can talk about is rooted in some kind of perception (be it sense perception or some kind of basic propositional attitude); in that sense, everything is subjective insofar as it involves the interaction of a subject and an object. But the use I see here seems to be a criticism of statements made without the participation of the vocabulary of science; as if statements that don't cohere with a particular vocabulary are automatically useless. So, which sciences have enough clout to make therewith coherent statements meaningful? Does geography count? What about psychology? Phrenology? Psychoacoustics? Quantum physics? Entomology? You're asking us to ignore perceived differences because they cannot be expressed in terms commonly used by dudes in white lab coats.

It would be great if we could speak about the different speeds of speakers using words like "resonance" or "density" or "pressure" or "work" or "friction". Just because we don't seem to be able to do so doesn't make it meaningless to use other vocabularies that seem to cohere with the perception.

Just trying to keep us all honest, kids.

------------------

May the bridges we burn light our way....

[mike stehr]

Point taken.

THANX!

[forresthump]

Prandue Ballet, you sure use a lot of complication to make one simple point. The real point is the first criticism came from them saying My sub is "slow". Well

I'm just asking for proof. This started on another thread so you jumping in the middle.

------------------

go forth & hump the world

[J M O N]

I think that speed may still not be the best word to describe what we are discussing. After all, what we are really talking about is how dynamic a Klipshorn is compared to direct radiator speakers how fast can a speaker get loud, and how fast can it go back to no output. This is really what dynamics are all about.

Prana-Bindu: Your understanding of horns is pretty good. A horn essentially makes the driver more efficient by coupling the air to the diaphragm. By doing this, the diaphragm in a horn system can move much more air for a given movement of a diaphragm compared to that in a direct radiator. This means that in a horn system, the diaphragm doesnt have to move nearly as much as that on a direct radiator to reach the same SPL. Because it doesnt have to move as far, it can get to that SPL faster. This is how horns get their improved dynamics (and lower distortion) over direct radiators.

Remember that we are talking about the dynamics of a K-horn. A fully horn loaded system is going to be more dynamic than direct radiators. There is nothing subjective about this. The physics behind horns give them this advantage over DRs. This is true for any horn system vs. any direct radiator system. If someone cant tell the differences in dynamics between a fully horn-loaded speaker system (e.g., Klipshorns, La Scalas, Belles) vs. a direct radiator with cones and domes (say a Thiel speaker), then they have impaired hearing. The differences are not subtle!

Forresthump: I do not have any problems with my head being slow, thank you very much.

Arco: I agree with everything you stated in your three above points. For me personally, I am mostly going to be concerned with getting a sub for HT. This shouldnt be as much of a concern, but of course I will try to get something that integrates as well as I can get it.

Now, lets get back to what this topic was about in the first place: helping Arco find some subs to match his K-horns. Arco owns K-horns, and he can hear how dynamic they are. I dont think anybody is going to be able to convince him that they are not dynamic and that for OPTIMAL integration, he doesnt need a sub that exhibits equivalent dynamics. I cannot be convinced either. I would suggest that you do some investigation into the Contrabass. It might be just what youre looking for. Hopefully some of the other folks that have mentioned it, and maybe even auditioned it, can chime in.