Quote:
Originally Posted by
mtg90 
I think Erich has everything for that kit ready.
One big advantage is the directivity control from the SEOS waveguide allowing for a smooth transition over to the woofer. The SHO-10 uses a rather small waveguide which probably loses pattern control well above the 1600hz crossover point. This leads to an uneven off axis response where the woofer transitions over to the waveguide. One side effect is that you cannot toe the speakers in and achieve even coverage of both frequency response and SPL across all seats. Another is any off axis reflections will be the uneven response and therefore have a different timber then that of the direct sound. Being able to toe in the speakers also helps to reduce the intensity of the first sidewall reflections.
So what do you get from a constant directivity design? More even coverage, better imaging and greater clarity.
Great post
Typically, it seems the SHO/PRO-10s have a nice subjective appeal. Some individuals that I believe generally know what they're talking, about have little bad to say about them in purely subjective listening evaluations. Sure, they've got known issues in both design and execution.
It's interesting reading G-Rilla's impressions of the newly powered versions. There's nothing like ample power reserves. At one time I used some 8" two way Klipsch LCRs, and I switched to an EP4000 powered front setup,.... from previously an AVR powered approach. The difference was nice, really allowed the two ways to sing. An amp subtly encountering it's limits, doesn't nearly sound as good as high current/ample voltage swing.
I'm convinced clipping occurs way before many realize, as the dynamic swings and leading edges of big transients are extraordinarily demanding, and this peak capability is what attributes to many amplifiers apparent "sound". I owned and experimented extensively with two models RB-35, RB-75. The lesser of the two had a very modest power rating,...like 125-150 watts. The EP4K rocks ~650w per side @4ohms, .... I lit those things up, ..no problem. The EPK set-up version sounded better than th 125w AVR setup. No those modest Klipsch aren't SHO-10s, but I understand the new found dilemma.
This diy community here is strong. Much fantastic discussion/advice given,...solid stuff.
Please, I'm not wanting to reinvent the wheel, however I'd approach the entire process with acoustics, first and foremost in mind.
It's no secret, achieving a quality audio experience in the home, is overwhelmingly dominated by loudspeakers, and acoustics. To really delineate everything a new set of mains has to offer, a look at the room's acoustic environment would be a prudent step. At minimum, addressing all the acoustic "low hanging fruit" would create an exponential bang for the buck from that point forward. Just saying another look at your room's treatment needs would likely pay huge dividends.
Yeah, there's measurable/audible differences among comp drivers. Likewise, LF drivers have characteristics unique to them. Both pattern control and matching each section's characteristics are worthy attributes. Pursuing a reduction in diffraction, and an entirely inert cabinet help imaging, detail and overall clarity. All that is significant. But man, not as significant as the acoustic distortions involved in speakers/subs interacting in small rooms.
Due to great work, the science is well understood. The room can easily impart huge 20-30dB swings to an otherwise superbly designed and executed loudspeaker. We all owe a debt of gratitude to Erich, and those individuals that designed the SEOS profile, etc. A two way SEOS based set of mains in well executed cabinets would keep you happy for a long time.
G-Rilla, I've thoroughly enjoyed your threads, ...loved your subs, .... loved the GTG, this too I'm enjoying. I'm way behind the curve wrt diy mains design, and aside from a comment like
good enough fo Geddes, good enough for me, that's all I've got.
But I do know that the performance of both subs and mains, are entirely dominated by their acoustic environment. It's all about the room. I'm just suggesting a unified approach, with acoustics needs just as prominent as the loudspeaker needs, because the two can't really can't be separated.
Following along,
All the best.
