Cones vs Compression

I meant to say "famous speaker designer". 

Well this is my belief also, I've never met a 2" driver/horn combination that I really liked, not as much as an equivalent paper cone/ 1" combination. The key as SKS01 says may be in the combination, I know that large smooth waveguides with circular throat sound to me, on the whole, nicer than rectangular CD horns with slot throat. But the one thing is relatively new and tends to get used with the best current technology can deliver in terms of a comp, while the latter has been around longer, from back when compression drivers maybe weren't as good either.

PauliePaul wrote: My coat is already on and i'm walking to the door as post this....... but.... I used to use a 2x12"+1x2"+2xslots mid/hi box split as follows; 2x12" - 120Hz to 600Hz 2" - 600Hz to 6kHz Slots - 6kHz upwards... The 2" comps were JBL 2445J and all the components were mounted on Limmer fibre glass horns... the cabs sounded amazing!! Not harsh at all.

+1
I think you've hit the nail on the head....
Tradditional 2" comps tend to rip your head off at high levels, that's why I think we've seen the trend towards smaller diameters, such as 1.4" and now 1.5", which is a compromise between a 1" and a 2", they have the power handling ability more towards a 2", but have a smoother quality.

I recently got some BMS coaxials from Tony Wilkes and really like the sound of them, although I like the sound of a paper cone too. Some people say the paper cones sound nicer in the vocal range.
 It would be interesting to hear from some speaker desingers who have made measurements of say impulse response and distortion to find the reason for the different sound quality.

Some people shoot down line array, but you have to concede that Dr Heil revolutionised pro audio, with his research into line array/ coupling etc. Look how many companies got on the bandwagon after VDOSC came out.
I think its not only how a system sounds, but how it arrays, the coverage nearfield and farield that has become important factor as well as the sound, these days.
Some of the more tradditional boxes sound really nice on axis, but move slightly to the side and you find its not that nice any more, they start combing horrendously. Maybe they were designed in an era when only the ears were the measuring tool?  Nowadays we have better mathematical and comuter modelling and I feel this extra knowledge really stands out.
Maybe some people bad mouth line array just because its out of reach financially?

tallmike wrote: There seems to be a few amp manufacturers that will not do Class D because is means doing a lot of R&D and actually working hard on it. The seem to be stuck on perpetuating designs that made them money 20 years ago. Why don't they stop complaining about the new technologies and put some work into it themselves, do some pioneering that they were famous for 20 years ago

There is another school of thought ... that says the technology isn't mature yet .. no point jumping in for a bit ... also you never know .. they might even be quietly playing with the technology on the side ... just when you think they are ignoring it .. whap .. out they pop with a 4 x 6K in a 3U box ...

To be fair, I think Class D is now coming of age, those new Peavey amps with their 400Khz + switching give a hint of what is possible.  Give it another 3 or 4 of years and I think you'll find a LOT more Class D amps about ... with efficiencies and build methodology that makes the current crop look a little outdated., but .. thats progress for you ... got to keep moving forward.

 at the moment, I think Class G/H and D are about level pegging ... D might have the edge in sheer grunt, G/H is still holding its own in terms of audio quality.  I can't see people getting alot more grunt easily out of G/H output stages ... as Class D get switching a bit quicker, you'll find the amp makers move over to it in their masses.

I was talking to one Class D designer the other day who is currently experimenting with a "hybrid" amp ... essentially a brutish Class D for the grunt and a low power (200w)  "error corrector" that dumps current into the output after the filter to try and linearise it all ... bit like a mega version of the old Quad 405 ... be interesting to hear that when/if he gets it going.

I find the biggest issue with comps is that they always seem to be bloody overdriven to the brink.

I've recently just built a pair of new mid tops, well technically more tops than anything that use a P.Audio BMD750 (2" comp that not many rate) above a B&C 12PE32 and below a Kenwood slot. And you know what, they sound blooming lovely. Push them and they'll take your nans ears out but to do I'd have to run them 4x louder than they need to be.