Does anyone else run there HT sans center speaker?

[E-Stat]

Coherence and resolution is not limited to electrostatics.

I'm not aware of any full range horns. Most I see are three way designs with each driver having a decidedly different radiation pattern and profoundly more moving mass at the low end. Especially since most horns are supplemented by direct radiator woofers at the bottom. The discontinuity at the crossover points is electrically evident as a saddle in the impedance curve and changes in phase. Do you know of any studio class microphone that isn't a full range condenser design? It is for the same reason that I prefer a single driver solution especially for wide band instruments like a piano.

I think some of the best design could do battle with any electrostatic system out there.

Would you care to cite an example?

To each his own.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

I'm not aware of any full range horns. Most I see are three way designs with each driver having a decidedly different radiation pattern and profoundly more moving mass at the low end. Especially since most horns are supplemented by direct radiator woofers at the bottom. The discontinuity at the crossover points is electrically evident as a saddle in the impedance curve and changes in phase.

You have never heard of the Klipschorn? It is a full range horn design.

You seem to think that all horns are exactly alike, and exhibit the same characteristics. Not all horns are made by JBL or Klipsch.

Have you heard Klipsch's new top of the line speaker?

How about Sunny Cables horn loaded speakers.

How about Acapella Audio or AvanteGarde designs?

How about any of TAD horn loaded speakers?

How about the many custom studio designs out there?

The point I am trying to make to you is you have not heard enough of the current implementation of hybrid cone/horn loaded technology that does not sound horn like, exhibit a saddle in the impedance curve, or changes the phase at the crossover.

Do you know of any studio class microphone that isn't a full range condenser design?

Yes, it is called the ball by Blue Microphones. It is a dynamic design with a frequency response of 35-16khz, and a dynamic range of 162db. Another is the Heil sound PR-40 dyanamic microphone with a frequency response of 28-18khz.

It is for the same reason that I prefer a single driver solution especially for wide band instruments like a piano.

Single drivers especially electrostatics have one big deficiency, total output and sensitivity. They make good music speakers, but are not so good for hometheater application where the SPL go well into the 100+db region.

Would you care to cite an example?

Doug Sax's custom design. Authur Mendell custom designs which are my favorite because he uses beryllium drivers behind the horns. These are not horn loaded speakers you will find in any high end shop, but perfect examples of hybrid horn loaded designs that could easily keep up with electrostatic designs note for note.

To each his own.

rw

Exactly!

[E-Stat]

You have never heard of the Klipschorn? It is a full range horn design.

Oh, I have most certainly heard K-Horns. I'll pass on their honky midrange and limited range at the frequency extremes. If you re-read my post on the topic of coherency, you'll find that I am talking about single driver systems, not three way speakers with three decidedly different drivers with three decidedly different radiation patterns and multiple sets of crossovers that further reduce their ability to sound as one.

You seem to think that all horns are exactly alike, and exhibit the same characteristics. Not all horns are made by JBL or Klipsch.

I find all multi-way speakers share the same challenges when the topic is coherency due to obvious reasons.

Have you heard Klipsch's new top of the line speaker?

I thought the K-Horn was that model. The Avant-Garde is very clean sounding with excellent resolution whose bass sounds like it belongs to a completely different speaker. That is the discontinuity I hear with virtually all multi-way horn/direct radiator hybrids.

The point I am trying to make to you is you have not heard enough of the current implementation of hybrid cone/horn loaded technology that does not sound horn like, exhibit a saddle in the impedance curve, or changes the phase at the crossover.

My complaint for the better ones is not that they share the honky, metallic sound of Altec and Klipsch horns, but to point out the obvious discontinuity between the dissimilar drivers. Play solo voice, piano or guitar and you'll hear what I'm referring to.

Yes, it is called the ball by Blue Microphones. It is a dynamic design with a frequency response of 35-16khz, and a dynamic range of 162db. Another is the Heil sound PR-40 dyanamic microphone with a frequency response of 28-18khz.

Are you aware of any recording labels that use these? Do you notice these are also full range designs? Why do you think that is the case? Shoeps and Neumann has dominated the recording industry for decades.

Single drivers especially electrostatics have one big deficiency, total output and sensitivity. They make good music speakers, but are not so good for hometheater application where the SPL go well into the 100+db region.

Indeed, it takes lots of radiating area and power to provide high output. As for me, I have zero desire to go "well into" the hearing damage range you prefer. As an aside, I always wear earplugs or sound deadening ear buds when I work in the yard for the same reason. I overwhelmingly choose quality over quantity. If you recall, we differed a while back during a conversation about two channel vs multi-channel systems. I continue to aver that one must necessarily compromise the quality of a MC system unless one has a huge multi-hundred thousand dollar budget. Naturally, had I access to an astronomical budget, I would choose Ray Kimber's idea of doing it right:

RMAF Show

More coverage-scroll down a bit

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

Oh, I have most certainly heard K-Horns. I'll pass on their honky midrange and limited range at the frequency extremes. If you re-read my post on the topic of coherency, you'll find that I am talking about single driver systems, not three way speakers with three decidedly different drivers with three decidedly different radiation patterns and multiple sets of crossovers that further reduce their ability to sound as one.

It is obvious you have NOT heard the new K-horns. Again, your comments are outdated. The horn hybrids I had custom made for my studio are a 4 way horn/cone hybrid. It has two different drivers (only the bass driver is a cone), it does NOT have 4 different radiation patterns on each horn, it was designed so that each radiation pattern remains exactly the same all the way through crossover point with no beaming whatsoever. The crossover system was expressly designed so that the speaker DOES sound like one. While you are entitled to you opinions (that are outdated at best), they do not reflect the current crop of horn hybrids that are out there. It is okay to love the design you chose, but you do not have to $hit on other designs because of that love.

I find all multi-way speakers share the same challenges when the topic is coherency due to obvious reasons.

Challenges can be overcome, especially when they are well understood. Coherency has nothing to do with a specific design, or the fact that one uses just one driver. It can be achieved in many different designs, and over multiple drivers if the system is well designed and matched. To say only one design is capable of coherence is disingenuous.

I thought the K-Horn was that model. The Avant-Garde is very clean sounding with excellent resolution whose bass sounds like it belongs to a completely different speaker. That is the discontinuity I hear with virtually all multi-way horn/direct radiator hybrids.

Yeah well electrostatics don't do deep bass at high levels without tremendous amounts of distortion.

My complaint for the better ones is not that they share the honky, metallic sound of Altec and Klipsch horns, but to point out the obvious discontinuity between the dissimilar drivers. Play solo voice, piano or guitar and you'll hear what I'm referring to.

A good horn hybrid design does not have discontinuities between drivers. I have played plenty of piano, solo and guitar through mine, and I don't hear any of the issues you bring up. I think you are painting a fine painting with a sweeper truck.

Are you aware of any recording labels that use these? Do you notice these are also full range designs? Why do you think that is the case? Shoeps and Neumann has dominated the recording industry for decades.

Shoeps and Neumann don't dominate any more, and the world of recording extends beyond just audio only applications.

My studio uses these, and yes I notice they were full range NON condenser microphones as well.

Indeed, it takes lots of radiating area and power to provide high output. As for me, I have zero desire to go "well into" the hearing damage range you prefer. As an aside, I always wear earplugs or sound deadening ear buds when I work in the yard for the same reason. I overwhelmingly choose quality over quantity.

I prefer headroom, not hearing damage. Headroom is where your choice fails. You do not have to choose quality over quantity. You can have both.

If you recall, we differed a while back during a conversation about two channel vs multi-channel systems. I continue to aver that one must necessarily compromise the quality of a MC system unless one has a huge multi-hundred thousand dollar budget. Naturally, had I access to an astronomical budget, I would choose Ray Kimber's idea of doing it right:

RMAF Show

More coverage-scroll down a bit

rw

This comment is pure BS. It does not require a multi hundred thousand dollar budget to get high quality MC sound. I must say I wouldn't spend ten thousand dollars on a high quality two channel system that already distorts the original recordings spatial perspective. That would be a compromise as well in my book. No matter how much you spend on a two channel system, it cannot equal the spatial accuracy that a very good multichannel system can give you.

Ray Kimber's setup is old school. You can get 5 TAD speakers or Thiel CS3.7, and Krell or California Labs amplification and get great sound for far less than $504,000+ dollars. His system would not even fit in most peoples rooms, and is not realistic for home applications period.

[E-Stat]

It is obvious you have NOT heard the new K-horns.

New K-Horns? No. Stuffing speakers in a corner doesn't do much for imaging.

Again, your comments are outdated. The horn hybrids I had custom made for my studio is a 4 way horn/cone hybrid. It has two different drivers (only the bass driver is a cone)...

A four way speaker using only two different drivers? So, the upper three range horns are all identical? OK! Pointing out why single drivers are inherently more coherent is not $hitting on other designs.

Challenges can be overcome, especially when they are well understood. A little snobbish huh?

My observations are the same against models like the Genesis 1, Nola Grand Reference and Scaena. Each of those has wonderful dynamics and frequency extension, but does not match a full range electrostat to these ears for absolute coherency. YMMV.

Yeah well electrostatics don't do deep bass at high levels without tremendous amounts of distortion.

When one listens at normal levels, that points becomes moot.

A good horn hybrid design does not have discontinuities between drivers. I have played plenty of piano, solo and guitar through mine, and I don't hear any of the issues you bring up. I think you are painting a fine painting with a sweeper truck.

To each his own.

I prefer headroom, not hearing damage. Headroom is where your choice fails.

Then I'll disregard your previous comment "where the SPL go well into the 100+db region." You either go well into that SPL region or you don't. I certainly don't nor have any desire to.

You do not have to choose quality over quantity. You can have both.

Such is relative.

This comment is pure BS. It does not require a multi hundred thousand dollar budget to get high quality MC sound.

Complete the concept. You must necessarily compromise quality until that level (in my experience) for having to split the amplifier and speaker budget by more than half for a five channel system vs. a two channel one. I have a modest five channel HT system which works fine for that medium. For music, however, I would rather choose better components over more channels. Obviously, your preference is different.

No matter how much you spend on a two channel system, it cannot equal the spatial accuracy that a very good multichannel system can give you.

That's great theory when you completely forget the concept of a musical library. I listen to my music, not concepts. About 1% of the library I've built over the past forty years happens to be MC. Even if the majority of my multi-miked recordings were MC, your comments would not apply because the image would still be artificially created. OTOH, I have heard many true MC Telarc recordings and they do sound nice. But I'm not one of those audiophiles who only listens to a handful of "spectacular" recordings.

You can get 5 TAD speakers or Thiel CS3.7, and Krell or California Labs amplification and get great sound for far less than $504,000+ dollars.

Yes you can if your prefer those speakers.

His system would not even fit in most peoples rooms, and is not realistic for home applications period.

Using Twelve Pro Stats driven by 10 kW of power is certainly not necessary for a home environment. Four of them for the front using smaller versions for the rear would be perfectly adequate.

rw

[Sir Terrence the Terrible]

New K-Horns? No. Stuffing speakers in a corner doesn't do much for imaging.

Funny, the new K-horns do not have much of a problem with imaging when I heard them. Have you ever heard of a false corner?

A four way speaker using only two different drivers? So, the upper three range horns are all identical? OK! Pointing out why single drivers are inherently more coherent is not $hitting on other designs.

No the horn sizes are different, but the drivers are the same.

A single driver may be more coherent in a single range, but not at all frequency ranges. Electrostatics are power hungry and inefficient, they beam at high frequencies, are placement fussy, and imaging is narrow. What they do give you is a great midrange, and for some folks, that is all they really want.

My observations are the same against models like the Genesis 1, Nola Grand Reference and Scaena. Each of those has wonderful dynamics and frequency extension, but does not match a full range electrostat to these ears for absolute coherency. YMMV.

Then you argument is based on personal choice and that is it basically.

When one listens at normal levels, that points becomes moot.

Normal levels are based on individual perspectives, not an established standard.

To each his own.

Exactly!

Then I'll disregard your previous comment "where the SPL go well into the 100+db region." You either go into that SPL region or you don't. I certainly don't.

That's your choice. Since a 110 piece orchestra can get that loud live during short peaks, I would hope my speaker could duplicate that. A short peak of 105db is not going to damage anyone's hearing.

Such is relative.

Many things are.

Complete the concept. You must necessarily compromise quality until that level (in my experience) for having to split the amplifier and speaker budget by more than half for a five channel system vs. a two channel one. I have a modest five channel HT system which works fine for that medium. For music, however, I would rather choose better components over more channels. Obviously, your preference is different.

Better components is a relative concept. Your better is not my better obviously. I have two 7.1 systems in my house, and I don't believe I had to compromise a dime to get great sound. A person that thinks two dimensionally believes that you have to make compromises that are so severe that good sound could cannot be achieved at a reasonable cost for a multichannel system. That is silly and narrow minded.

That's great theory when you completely forget the concept of a musical library. I listen to my music, not concepts. About 1% of the library I've built over the past forty years happens to be MC.

Such a dichotomy. You spend all of this money on two channels systems in the name of coherency, yet the system compromises the accuracy of the performance from a spatial perspective. You rob Peter to pay Paul, interesting trade off. You may ignore the concept in the name of listening to the music, but that does not take a thing away from the concept. Your argument is personal, but not exportable.

Yes you can if your prefer those speakers.

Exactly!

Using Twelve Pro Stats driven by 10 kW of power is certainly not necessary for a home environment. Four of them for the front using smaller versions for the rear would be perfectly adequate.

A four channel surround system still has spatial compromises when considering it is widely understood that it takes three front speakers to minimally map a front soundstage. Two speakers only work well from a central spot exactly in between them. Move slightly off axis, and your soundstage accuracy completely disappears. Any phantom images between those two speakers are still subject to a 3db dip in the frequency ranges between 1-4khz, no matter how good the speakers are. A dedicated speaker is always better than a phantom image, especially when heard slightly off axis. Two channel systems are for one person only, which means that only one can appreciate it, and for two it is a compromise for both parties. If you are the only one listening, great, but I think having the audience in a live recording clapping in front of me instead of two the sides, and/or rear is a little disconcerting for me. Having ambience emanate from behind the speakers instead of behind me is as well. Concept on not, spatial accuracy is just as important as any other parameter for audio listening.

rw[/QUOTE]

[E-Stat]

Funny, the new K-horns do not have much of a problem with imaging when I heard them. Have you ever heard of a false corner?

Well if they wouldn't sound (even more) like crap when taken out of the corner, then they might be more popular. If you recall Paul envisioned using them in a three channel system with a Belle in the middle. BTW, I saw a $20k model in Stereophile that abandoned the folded horn corner design. Is that the one to which you referred to earlier?

and imaging is narrow. What they do give you is a great midrange, and for some folks, that is all they really want.

The faceted array design of the Sound Labs provides your choice of radiation angles. Mine is a 90 degree design that sounds pretty much the same across that wide stretch. You can also choose 22 or 45 degree designs for use with arrays. The cost no object "old school" array Ray Kimber used was three 22 degree units per side. As for me, I find flat response to 25 hz and extension to above 20 kHz sufficient for my purposes. Admittedly, below that their response nose dives. Perhaps your definition of the midrange differs from mine.

Then you argument is based on personal choice and that is it basically.

As are everyone's arguments. Pick the choice of compromises you find best. Again, you'll note there are zero multi-way microphones at the other end of the transduction chain. The benefits are identical.

Normal levels are based on individual perspectives, not an established standard.

No disagreement there. Thirty square feet of panel provides exceptionally low distortion bass at the non-damaging levels I prefer.

That's your choice. Since a 110 piece orchestra can get that loud live during short peaks, I would hope my speaker could duplicate that.

If you sit in the pit or row "B". That's not where I ever chose to sit.

A short peak of 105db is not going to damage anyone's hearing.

Here again, if that's what you enjoy, go for it !

That is silly and narrow minded.

We have very different frames of reference.

Such a dichotomy. You spend all of this money on two channels systems in the name of coherency, yet the system compromises the accuracy of the performance from a spatial perspective.

Not just coherency. Transparency. Transient response. Soundstage height as well as width. I find the minimally miked classical recordings from the 50s, Telarcs, Sheffields, Reference Recordings, Windham Hill, etc all provide a very natural representation because the spatial cues are on the recording. That's why I have spent considerable effort with speaker placement and room treatments. The bigger question remains that I don't limit my musical choices by the choosing only gee-whiz recordings. I get the other benefits with ALL my music.

...but that does not take a thing away from the concept. Your argument is personal, but not exportable.

Agreed. My enjoyment comes from the music, not the gear. I gather then you completely dispense with listening to any music recorded prior to what ten years ago?

Move slightly off axis, and your soundstage accuracy completely disappears. Any phantom images between those two speakers are still subject to a 3db dip in the frequency ranges between 1-4khz, no matter how good the speakers are.

Our speaker experience is quite different with respect to music. I use a center channel with the HT.

BTW, I see Telarc now uses the Sanken 100 kHz condenser. Didn't think they would go backwards.

rw