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

[thewas]

I couldn't find any waterfall or polar charts on these, but could anyone speculate on their directivity pattern?

Reference One — TAD LABORATORIES

TAD REFERENCE ONE　-　TAD-R1TX

www.technicalaudiodevices.com

The compact version of it was measured by Erin as well some other TAD models had been measured in the past by Stereophile and all show smooth directivity as good coaxials:

TAD COMPACT REFERENCE ONE (TAD-CR1TX) Speaker Review

TAD COMPACT REFERENCE ONE (TAD-CR1TX) Speaker

www.erinsaudiocorner.com

TAD Compact Reference CR1 loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com

Sidebar 3: Measurements I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system and a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone to measure the TAD Compact Reference CR1's frequency response in the farfield, and an Earthworks QTC-40 for the nearfield and spatially averaged room responses. My estimate of the CR1's voltage sensitivity...

www.stereophile.com

TAD Evolution One loudspeaker Measurements | Stereophile.com

Sidebar 3: Measurements I used DRA Labs' MLSSA system and a calibrated DPA 4006 microphone to measure the TAD Evolution One's frequency response in the farfield, and an Earthworks QTC-40 for the nearfield responses. For the farfield measurements, I left in place the grilles that cover the...

www.stereophile.com

 

[babadono]

Very late to this love/hate thread...have you(anyone who dislikes horns) heard Klipsch Jubilees? I love mine. And yes you have to like horns.

 

[Arindal]

I couldn't find any waterfall or polar charts on these, but could anyone speculate on their directivity pattern?

TAD in general is among the world-leading speaker manufacturers when it comes to directivity, maybe a bit heavy on the lower mids and upper bass (which can be EQed). Unfortunately their loudspeakers are expensive and the man behind the genius concept has left the company some years ago. I guess he is with MoFi currently.

have you(anyone who dislikes horns) heard Klipsch Jubilees?

Yes, fully agree. Surprisingly they do not sound like old fashioned horns. Bass and impulse response is maybe the best I have ever heard.

 

[dped90]

TAD in general is among the world-leading speaker manufacturers when it comes to directivity, maybe a bit heavy on the lower mids and upper bass (which can be EQed). Unfortunately their loudspeakers are expensive and the man behind the genius concept has left the company some years ago. I guess he is with MoFi currently.

thewas had kindly provided reviews on other TAD speakers, though I was especially curious about measurements of the TAD-R1TX.

 

[Da cynics]

Very interesting.

 

[Tim Link]

Very interesting.

I'll be watching with great interest for reviews on these 'lensguides' if and when they hit the market.

 

[Arindal]

I'll be watching with great interest for reviews on these 'lensguides' if and when they hit the market.

Would expect such technology to mainly target the sound reinforcement market. Given size, frequency range, minimum listening distance and complexity of such concepts, it does not look like it can be turned into a consumer product for home use easily. The market is not particularly crying for chunky speaker solutions offering narrow vertical dispersion.

 

[dped90]

Would expect such technology to mainly target the sound reinforcement market. Given size, frequency range, minimum listening distance and complexity of such concepts, it does not look like it can be turned into a consumer product for home use easily. The market is not particularly crying for chunky speaker solutions offering narrow vertical dispersion.

Yes, it's not clear whether Lewis and Celestion would also target this waveguide technology at the consumer or even DIY audio parts user market.

But however well the too huge for me Klipsch K402 horns performs in this regard, the two competing performance parameters Lewis Mac Donald cites-HF dispersion vs impedance-is this largely a tradeoff between exponential horns like https://josephcrowe.com/products/3d-cad-plans-for-es-290-biradial-horn-horn-no-1670 which presumably offer stable load impedance but narrowing dispersion with higher frequencies versus constant directivity horns (e.g. K402, K510, JBL 2384, B&C ME464), which may have much wider HF dispersion but may suffer not only from rapid impedance changes impacting sound quality at SPLs in home situations, but other artifacts like edge diffraction and/or high order mode resonances? https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/why-do-homs-suck.340177/

Best Compression Drivers today 2022?

Are you considering proximity/first arrival? On second thought. If directivity didn't matter then room treatment wouldn't matter. Increasing directivity reduces the room... Room treatment (damping) reduces the room.... increasing directivity increases accuracy... increasing Room treatment...

www.diyaudio.com

Not being a speaker design expert nor any kind of diy experimenter I don’t pretend to know how badly these rapid impedance changes would impact sound quality at SPLs in home situations (Lewis often refers to PA systems in the video). But needing to be on the safe side since I need to hire someone (Troy Crowe) to build my speakers and using the midwoofers he had tested-my guess is that Lewis would site exponential horns as being the one less likely to produce these artifacts to an audible degree. Of course, the downside with an exponential with a corner frequency low enough to cross with my midwoofers to keep them from beaming and distorting
https://josephcrowe.com/blogs/news/altec-416-8b-in-100l-sealed is the need to add a tweeter, and the attendant issues with multi-driver speakers, at least with passive crossovers. No speakers are perfect, perhaps especially so with horn speakers.

 

[dasdoing]

Very interesting.

I wonder if they could do a 60x30. I would want these in my LP

 

[Tim Link]

Would expect such technology to mainly target the sound reinforcement market. Given size, frequency range, minimum listening distance and complexity of such concepts, it does not look like it can be turned into a consumer product for home use easily. The market is not particularly crying for chunky speaker solutions offering narrow vertical dispersion.

Nothing seems to stop people from trying sound reinforcement products at home.

 

[LTig]

Nothing seems to stop people from trying sound reinforcement products at home.

Well, hanging a 4 m high line array speaker set into a 2.5 m high living room is a problem ...

 

[Tim Link]

Well, hanging a 4 m high line array speaker set into a 2.5 m high living room is a problem ...

Maybe I misunderstood but some of those prototypes were single driver, didn't seem all that big, and had ridiculously wide dispersion all the way up to the top. That seems ideal for home use. They're sort of like a really advanced multicellular horn. People use those in their houses.

 

[dasdoing]

Why is wide dispersion still being considered the ideal? It is important in a big living room where you want to listen from several different locations, but is that what the audiophile does? 60 degrees total horizontal and 30 total vertical is enough and will reduce reflections. perhaps 60 total vertical if you insist in being able to listen sitting and standing.
And now we would have a small horn, too....even in this special variation.

 

[Arindal]

60 degrees total horizontal and 30 total vertical is enough

In theory yes, or maybe +-40deg if you have several listening positions next to each other. Practically it is difficult to design a speaker which would serve a +-40deg horizontal listening window with almost identical frequency response and then suddenly drop by several 10dB in response for all frequencies.

 

[Newman]

Why is wide dispersion still being considered the ideal?

Stereo failings. Controlled listening tests reveal that for stereo playback, preference increases with side wall reflections included. True for all listener positions, including the 'sweet spot'. Wider dispersion stereo speakers tend to be better at providing the preferred 'apparent source width' than narrow dispersion speakers.

It is important in a big living room where you want to listen from several different locations, but is that what the audiophile does?

That's not the main reason, which I described above.

60 degrees total horizontal and 30 total vertical is enough and will reduce reflections.

Which turns out to be a bad idea for stereo. See above.

perhaps 60 total vertical if you insist in being able to listen sitting and standing.
And now we would have a small horn, too....even in this special variation.

If the audiophile is enlightened enough to embrace multichannel surround playback, including well-implemented upmixing of stereo, then narrow dispersion speakers start to have real merit.

cheers

 

[Da cynics]

Would expect such technology to mainly target the sound reinforcement market. Given size, frequency range, minimum listening distance and complexity of such concepts, it does not look like it can be turned into a consumer product for home use easily. The market is not particularly crying for chunky speaker solutions offering narrow vertical dispersion.

Obviously you have the SR and PA market in mind, and there are quite a few similar ideas and implementations in that industry. But if this study stands out, I think it is the level of optimization and flexibility in its objectives. And I think it is based on a deep understanding of the phenomenon.

 

[Bjorn]

I don't

Stereo failings. Controlled listening tests reveal that for stereo playback, preference increases with side wall reflections included. True for all listener positions, including the 'sweet spot'. Wider dispersion stereo speakers tend to be better at providing the preferred 'apparent source width' than narrow dispersion speakers.


That's not the main reason, which I described above.


Which turns out to be a bad idea for stereo. See above.


If the audiophile is enlightened enough to embrace multichannel surround playback, including well-implemented upmixing of stereo, then narrow dispersion speakers start to have real merit.

cheers

As one who has designed both wide and narrow uniform directivity speakers, and have done AB comparisons many times in different rooms and with different acoustic treatment I find the Tool research on this not to be trusted much.

It's highly dependent on the dimension of the room, acoustic treatment, type of music material, time of span you listen to, and probably also the listener preference or mood of the day.

When did for example one of these researcher take proper diffusion into account? The Harman room for instance removes rear reflections, which is first of quite psychoacoustic detrimental (according to other and earlier studies), and will highly effect the result.

I think we need to stop looking at minor studies with mostly short listening tests conducted in a certain room with certain treatment (or no treatment) and try to make objective and general conclusions.

Multichannel introduces a lot of acoustic issues which I never have liked. It's highly incorrect with polar lobing, superposition and comb filtering.

 

[Wesseling Audio Lab]

Bjorn's post 937 is perfect!

The majority of audio enthusiasts will never install acoustic treatments so my guess is that the research is simply promoting the idea that you don't need treatments and that directivity is the solution!

I personally don't desire reflections! Proper diffusion and well implemented is a different story, but well damped is easier, simple and less expensive to install if the entire ceiling and wall surfaces are considered so that the treatment is built in, fabric covered etc.

As I get older reflections stand out even more as a bad acoustic environment to be in

 

[Newman]

@Bjorn Let's just say my post is a reasonable summary of the best available audio research, and yours is saying the research is not right because you did AB comparisons and also you offer a professional service that benefits from the research being wrong or inadequate.

I actually find it highly questionable that commercial operators should post here casting doubt on research in areas that the research doesn't suit their commercial operation. Is that even allowed?

 

[Arindal]

Stereo failings. Controlled listening tests reveal that for stereo playback, preference increases with side wall reflections included.

Do you have further information on the setup of these controlled tests with listeners preferring a higher level of side wall reflections? Particularly the choice of recordings used?

I have been taking part in controlled tests a long time ago on behalf of a neutral institution, and findings were pretty different, as side wall reflections contributed to localization instability which led to very poor preference ratings quickly. Have to remark that this was not for hi-fi, but mainly executed by recording engineers experienced in recording classical/jazz in reverberant venues, paying a lot of attention to localization.

With mainly ´dry´ material, monaural recordings or popular recordings not containing natural reverb, being used, I could imagine the result flipping in favor of more side-wall reflections under certain conditions easily.

I don’t pretend to know how badly these rapid impedance changes would impact sound quality at SPLs in home situations

Being quite experienced in the field of evaluating loudspeaker sound quality, I would not dare to pretend anything based on such models, either. In the end of the day, you have to give it a listen and ask several people experienced with judging loudspeaker sound quality what their impression is.