profsbg

If you have a single listening location, it seems one should do all the filtering at the listening point. Breaking it up into two components (1 meter and listening point) cannot do better in theory, and in general would be expected to do worse. With multiple listening positions the situation is different. The other caveat is the ability to interpret the measurements and constrain the filtering appropriately (this issue would have to be addressed to some extent regardless). There are many successful implementations of single listening point filtering with psychoacoustic criteria , such as Acourate. It has been used successfully with Cornscala-type speakers. I would like to try it with my Klipschorns, but the PC-based audio interface is a barrier for me.

Can anyone comment to what extent the Volti horns widen the sweet spot versus the K400? And how far back from the horn are you? A single seat sweet spot is my main problem with the Klipschorns. It seems like it is a fundamental limitation of listening too close (15' to the baffle in my case) for exponential horns. I have read that there is some improvement with pure tractrix like Volti. I have had some success listening off-axis and rebalancing, or using a center channel, but I would like a better solution. It is more of a problem of a large shift in the sound towards the closer speaker and not a shift in the timbre.

Cost aside, how would the AMT-1 compare to using a K510 (and active crossover)? What is the downside compared with the latter horn loaded controlled-directivity approach?

If you use weather stripping or double up on pipe insulation in the notched area is the seal good enough to not see a flashlight beam directed through the notches? Most implementations of pipe insulation on the tail pieces that I have seen follow the edge , and do not double up at the notches . Hence the notched area is not really sealed, assuming no baseboard trim or molding. Naively, I would guess this significantly affects the seal and possibly the output, assuming proper output requires a good seal. Yet it is popular to use the pipe insulation this way. Any thoughts or data on this? I have a crude measurement rig but I am not very confident using it.

How does this work? It seems like the mid and tweeter are both off the same channel, so only a HPF can be used. Then you are stuck with a 1st order tweeter filter, and you can't adjust the gain, change the crossover point, perform any equalization or linearization, or do anything but correct time delay without rolling in passive components.

I agree with the better fidelity of most of the albums in the list to the extent that I am familiar with it. However, I noticed that CSNY Deja Vu is on the list. I love the music but have found at least some of the tracks to be very heavy on mid bass, even boomy, and also to have extremely wide channel separation (the latter is really a separate issue). Can you post the unmastering EQ or otherwise comment on it, for this album?

If I recall, there are noise level and spectral studies on the miniDSP, along with discussion of the role of digital input and gain structure on various forums, including miniDSP's own. Some of the results suggest different performance amongst the different implementations (2x4 versus 4x10 for e.g.). I will look them up and we can have a discussion, but this is probably not the right thread. I don't own miniDSP so it isn't my solution, but I thought we were both just speculating - maybe not a good idea that. Not sure I understand your comment about AES/EBU output. I would use S/PDIF or perhaps HDMI from my digital player, the latter supports multichannel.

Is this true about miniDSP? I get a different impression from this and other forums, specifically that the noise is mitigated by a digital input and/or appropriate gain structure. I personally would not use an analog input to a digital crossover, especially an analog preamp which is intended for volume control. It's also essential to have some way of attenuating the output, such as trims on the amplifier. Lacking this approach, the miniDSP with its lower cost analog circuitry would be at a disadvantage.

Chris, Please explain what are the K-510 advantages if sitting on axis, and if the advantages are significant (e.g., due to room response). Also, is there any advantage to the (larger) tractrix sound when in fact sitting on axis? Thanks

This is what I would recommend for a tweeter or a BMS 4550 on a QSC waveguide from Parts Express. It's in my avatar and looks like a "mini me" K-402. that QSC horn sure looks fine (baby K-402~ ) but I've compared B&C DE500 combined to that horn with a CP-25. DE500 is very similar to DE250 but with a Neo magnet. CP-25 sounded more open and detailed. DE500 behind a Seos 12 horn was more sweet to ear than QSC. also better controlled dispersion pattern. after all, the best tweet I've ever heard so far is Fostex Fostex T500. this small tweeter sounds badly good! never heard anything better in term of micro detail and tonal accuracy. sure this opinion is subjective. Not having heard them side by side, I would probably agree with you, but the Seos Option was not on the table at my time of purchase. Besides when you throw prices in the equation, the price/performance ration isn't there with the other options you suggest, especially the Fostex, The best horn system I've ever heard was the Sadurni and it used a $1,000 Fostex. When I hear Nora Jones "Come Away With Me" on those horns at Axpona, it was an emotional experience. Best imaging and "live cymbals" sound I've ever heard. Any thoughts on the DE10 versus the DE250 with either the QSC or Seos when sensitivity is not an issue (active set up)? Is there some throat angle issue? I kind of like the idea of mylar, along with the Community M200.

I had to build up the gasket on the old style Community M200 to mount to a flat surface (Volti horn). Took several gaskets stacked actually. New style M200 doesn't have that issue. Any suggestions on tweeters to use with the M200 other than Beyma CP25 and JBL 2404 with say LR 24 dB cross at 4.0 kHz? I have the Eminence APT 200 which I don't like. Maybe something like QSC PL-000446GP or Denovo SEOS-12 with B&C DE250 or DE10?

My impression is that it is the measurement process and the transfer function identification which is novel. Also, they don't use deconvolution (inverse filtering) since the problem is ill-posed, but rather least squares and in some cases model-based methods for estimation. I have not heard it, but am intrigued by their claims. I will say that if I put on a set of headphones and aside from tactile feedback could not distinguish the sound from the speakers, then I would consider that revolutionary. Haven't heard it, would certainly like to.

Has anyone heard the Smyth SVS Realiser ? They claim their emulation and the real system sound nearly identical, and is not limited to your system but anyone which can be measured. Hard to imagine.

Curious whether you noticed any improvement by cutting the additional piece of wood and sealing vertically all the way to the floor as you have done. Most of the pipe insulation seal jobs I have seen (mine included) simply follow the tailpiece to the floor. Since I dont have baseboard, this does leave a gap.

I am thinking about a sub for a chorus II/academy front (RS3 rears) system which will be used 75%/25% for music/HT. My room is about 3000 ft^2. I would like something which integrates well with the chorus II especially it's tight mid bass down to maybe 40-50 Hz. From some reading, it seems like the new epik valor or the av123 MFW-15 might work. Is anyone using one of these new subs with chorus (or forte or heritage) and could comment on how they integrate for music? Other suggestions are also welcome of course. Thanks