Horn Speakers - Is it me or.......

[andreasmaaan]

However, the revel won the test. And the revel has considerably narrower pattern control than the 120 degrees of the M2.

If truly wide pattern (120degrees) was a strong preference, the M2 would have walked away with the test.

Wonderful as both speakers are, I think 120 degrees excites early reflections too much, and is less preferential. I also think different music types ( orchestra Vs close mic) would likely score differently for audience preference on pattern control width.

The Revel has somewhat wider directivity than the M2.

This is illustrated in the two speakers' spins, in which it's clear that the Salon2's DI fluctuates between 6 and 7 from 2kHz to 10kHz, vs. a DI fluctuating between 7 and 8 for the M2 in the same frequency range (and although it's not represented by these measurements, the difference in directivity is even greater if we focus only on the horizontal plane; also, the Revel's directivity is far wider than the M2's below 2kHz):

And while I agree with you that, yes, strictly speaking the Salon2 "won" that "shootout", the limited nature of the experiment and the small number of subjects mean that the result doesn't really give us any information that is statistically significant or (more importantly) that would allow us to conclude that directivity was the decisive factor.

 

[Lbstyling]

The Revel has somewhat wider directivity than the M2.

This is illustrated in the two speakers' spins, in which it's clear that the Salon2's DI fluctuates between 6 and 7 from 2kHz to 10kHz, vs. a DI fluctuating between 7 and 8 for the M2 in the same frequency range (and although it's not represented by these measurements, (1) the difference in directivity is even greater if we focus only on the horizontal plane and (2) the Revel's directivity is far wider than the M2's below 2kHz):

View attachment 105130

View attachment 105131

And while I agree with you that, yes, strictly speaking the Salon2 "won" that "shootout", the limited nature of the experiment and the small number of subjects mean that the result doesn't really give us any information that is statistically significant or (more importantly) that would allow us to conclude that directivity was the decisive factor.

We would need to see the pair on the same table to compare better as the scale is different.

I was going by amir testing the revels as having approx 70 degrees on axis, and the M2 being advertised as 120degrees horizontal.

It seams the SPL point they are accepting as the measurement point is wildly different though.

https://www.audiosciencereview.com/forum/index.php?threads/revel-f328be-speaker-review.17443/

So it's a fair point.

On a side note, the spinorama on the new revel f328be indicates it's a considerably superior speaker if your aim is to keep the DI low.

 

[andreasmaaan]

I was going by amir testing the revels as having approx 70 degrees on axis, and the M2 being advertised as 120degrees horizontal.

The Revels are +/- 70° = 140°

 

[Lbstyling]

The Revels are +/- 70° = 140°

Lol.
I should really read things more carefully!

 

[andreasmaaan]

Lol.
I should really read things more carefully!

Haha, it happens

BTW, measurements I've seen comparing Revel Performa series speakers with Ultima2 series speakers show the Ultima2 series to be even slightly wider directivity than the Performa series. So for most of the treble, I'd expect the Ultima2 to be even wider than 140°. It's an unusually wide-directivity cone/dome speaker, in fact.

FWIW though, I don't think the shootout we've been discussing tells us anything definitive about listener preferences and directivity. You can't infer that sort of thing from tests involving just one room and two pairs of speakers.

Plenty of more rigorous experiments have been carried out to try to determine listener preference with respect to directivity, but results have been pretty mixed and ambiguous. It's an interesting area that I think warrants more research. And ofc, it's not really possible to separate loudspeaker directivity from room acoustics since the reflected sound field is a result of the interaction between the two.

Personally, FWIW, I have enjoyed both narrow(ish) and wide(ish) directivity speakeras. I the end I think it largely comes down to not only speaker directivity and room acoustics, but also speaker positioning, listening distance, and music program.

 

[Duke]

The 2384 sounds better than the M2 waveguide.

Very interesting!

Aside from the photo I just looked at, I know nothing about the 2384. Looks like the horizontal pattern width varies a bit, not sure what the nominal coverage angles are, maybe 90 degrees horizontal and 50 degrees vertical?

Can you elaborate on what you like about it?

 

[Duke]

FWIW though, I don't think the shootout we've been discussing tells us anything definitive about listener preferences and directivity. You can't infer that sort of thing from tests involving just one room and two pairs of speakers.

My understanding is that the shoot-out was single speaker vs single speaker, which I would expect to slightly favor the speaker with the wider directivity.

 

[andreasmaaan]

Very interesting!

Aside from the photo I just looked at, I know nothing about the 2384. Looks like the horizontal pattern width varies a bit, not sure what the nominal coverage angles are, maybe 90 degrees horizontal and 50 degrees vertical?

Can you elaborate on what you like about it?

Excellent guess lol!

Here are the beamwidths of the horn as used in JBL's 4722 loudspeaker:

 

[andreasmaaan]

My understanding is that the shoot-out was single speaker vs single speaker, which I would expect to slightly favor the speaker with the wider directivity.

Yes, had forgotten that. Another excellent point.

 

[q3cpma]

A lot of people think that the more even bass due to the Salon's woofer array almost reaching the floor could have been the "culprit". Nonetheless, the speakers are way too different to deduce anything, we'd need some DIY speakers especially made for the occasion with the only difference being directivity.

My understanding is that the shoot-out was single speaker vs single speaker, which I would expect to slightly favor the speaker with the wider directivity.

Indeed.

 

[Duke]

Excellent guess lol!

Here are the beamwidths of the horn as used in JBL's 4722 loudspeaker:

View attachment 105182

VERY INTERESTING!!

The horizontal beamwidth zigs where the vertical beamwidth zags, such that each fills in for the other somewhat. Dunno who designed it, but imo THAT is brilliant.

 

[Floyd Toole]

An interesting comparison - Figure 10.15 in my book.

 

[Duke]

An interesting comparison - Figure 10.15 in my book.

Seeing that photo of the 2384 horn in a theater speaker, I think I understand its unusual shape: The pattern is optimized for a theater audience, with greater horizontal coverage needed for the front of the audience (which will be down lower) than for the back of the audience (which will be up higher, but not by as much of angular difference as the front of the audience).

 

[thewas]

An interesting comparison - Figure 10.15 in my book.

Very interesting, with a bit of joking some could say, lesson learned: Use domestic cone/dome loudspeakers better for speech and higher directivity horns for most musical instruments.

 

[tuga]

Very interesting, with a bit of joking some could say, lesson learned: Use domestic cone/dome loudspeakers better for speech and higher directivity horns for most musical instruments.

I wonder jokingly if regardless of the recorded sound source one should really only use a single speaker.

 

[Floyd Toole]

These arguments have been made before - different speakers for different instruments. Not joking, that would be fine if you listening in a performing space because the concert hall is part of the performance and the different directivities of instruments are evident to listeners to the live event. Think French horns that face backwards, giving them a distinctive "distant" sound, brasses that are in your face, and strings that fill the hall.

This is one challenge of sound recording and reproduction: to capture and reproduce a credible replica of the live experience, including the hall. However the vast majority of recordings are studio creations having no equivalent in live performance. In my experience many are the better for it because of the enormous flexibility to provide increased clarity for soloists while delivering various amounts of envelopment. I love it when I hear some of these "classical" attributes in popular music, especially those recorded in multichannel or stereo upmixed to multichannel.

 

[Frank Dernie]

This is one challenge of sound recording and reproduction: to capture and reproduce a credible replica of the live experience, including the hall. However the vast majority of recordings are studio creations having no equivalent in live performance. In my experience many are the better for it because of the enormous flexibility to provide increased clarity for soloists while delivering various amounts of envelopment. I love it when I hear some of these "classical" attributes in popular music, especially those recorded in multichannel or stereo upmixed to multichannel.

I think this is the nub of the discussion.
In the end, the recording, and how it has been made, has IME a bigger influence on the sound we hear in our listening rooms than any competent hifi equipment, at least with the music I most enjoy.
My most enjoyable listening experiences, other than attending concerts are often live recordings and live BBC broadcasts.
OTOH I have never expected accurate "spatiality" from a stereo so am never disappointed. Having a plausible 3D soundscape is not something I have sought or missed personally.

 

[Floyd Toole]

I think this is the nub of the discussion.
In the end, the recording, and how it has been made, has IME a bigger influence on the sound we hear in our listening rooms than any competent hifi equipment, at least with the music I most enjoy.
My most enjoyable listening experiences, other than attending concerts are often live recordings and live BBC broadcasts.
OTOH I have never expected accurate "spatiality" from a stereo so am never disappointed. Having a plausible 3D soundscape is not something I have sought or missed personally.

Yes, we have adapted very well to stereo's limitations, and it is a credit to the composers that the music can survive the limitations to deliver pleasure. However, I often try to imagine what one of the great composers of old would have done if they had access to full-bandwidth multichannel sound. I attend live orchestral performances a dozen times a year, and they are "reference" quality experiences. But, in my excellent home immersive system I can be equally, but differently, satisfied.
I find great pleasure in video concerts. Classical, not so much, because once one has been zoomed in on all of the soloists it becomes repetitive. An animated conductor adds some zest, though. Mostly I sit back and listen to the music, which for this genre of music I mainly do with audio only. However, popular and jazz concerts are something else, and to see the visual "performances" and sometimes elaborate, imaginative staging is high entertainment. With a large screen, immersive hall and audience sounds, it is hard to sit still during the show, and not clap at the end.

 

[MakeMineVinyl]

However, I often try to imagine what one of the great composers of old would have done if they had access to full-bandwidth multichannel sound.

Berlioz intentionally had 'surround sound' in his Requiem. This piece was unsurprisingly very popular for demo purposes in the "Quad" era. And of course many pipe organs have antiphonal "surround" ranks of pipes.

 

[tuga]

Berlioz intentionally had 'surround sound' in his Requiem. This piece was unsurprisingly very popular for demo purposes in the "Quad" era. And of course many pipe organs have antiphonal "surround" ranks of pipes.

Wagner had diffuse orchestral sound in his operas: