I'm considering a 2 channel fully Aktiv system to start with the floorstanding 350As then possibly a 5.1 expansion down the road. I really liked them for 2 channel and compared them with Wilson Watt/puppy, Dynaudio Temptation? and Dali something. Wilson was closet, but required external amps of course, and are not as attractive for my space. thoughts?

thomsens,

I am at the same place you are. I am ready to order the 350A. I like the idea of eliminating the amp/cable/speaker integration issue.

Only concern I have is over the long term. If anything fails, Linn has to be there to help. What happens if Linn goes under? I doubt you could take the 350A back to passive? What about 10 year old electronics?

I am surprised they only offer 2 years full warrenty, 5 years parts. I believe in the past Linn was full 5 years parts and labor.

I know if you have 10 year old Thiel's, you can get them repaired by Thiel, I am sure Wilson and Dali are the same. What about Linn in 10 years

Aside from the above, I have found nothing other then Komri's that provide so much performance for the $$ Go for it, as I am!

Square

Square - for a couple weeks, I thought I was alone on the planet. :D I couldn't find any evidence that the Artikulat's weren't universally disregarded by the community. I'm ok if people just think they are overpriced, or think that half the fun is searching for amps too (or showing off their stack of external gear). And frankly, for that money, I feel like a fool not listening to everything else out there. In the end, I keep coming back to the fact that if great engineers are given the ability to perfectly match their amplifier to the speakers on a driver by driver basis, it has to be better than what I'd do on my own and for far less time/hassle and for a much cleaner look. I liked the Wilson WATT/Puppy's sound, but the look and external amps weren't doing it for me. So, I've checked that "looked around" box.

I'm actually looking at preamps now. I would like a DAC built in (clean look) for inevitable future cheaper digital devices, and I'm finding few options. The Bryston BP26DA looks interesting. What are you using them with? And what color option are you getting?

BTW - I wouldn't worry about Linn unless you know that they have financial troubles...they've been around for a long time now. Also, I have a dealer who has been selling them for 18 years and does a lot of service himself, so I feel comfortable there.

thomsens,

I have two ways to drive them. A Unidisk 2.1 and Kinos, and I can swap in a Bryston SP2. I like the Bryston better with my active 242's!

I have ordered cherry with black (3k array and feet). Most dealers show and order with silver. I like the black much better. My 242's are cherry with black.

I have also checked off the "looked around" box and am not looking back. Should arrive in 1-2 weeks.

Square

thomsens,

I have two ways to drive them. A Unidisk 2.1 and Kinos, and I can swap in a Bryston SP2. I like the Bryston better with my active 242's!

I have ordered cherry with black (3k array and feet). Most dealers show and order with silver. I like the black much better. My 242's are cherry with black.

I have also checked off the "looked around" box and am not looking back. Should arrive in 1-2 weeks.

Square

Interesting selection. I really like the Maple/Silver combo. I'm not excited about the "rivit" look of the metal housing, but whatever.

I saw black on the Walnut, but I wasn't to excited about it - the walnut is too dark to pull that off. I've also seen silver/walnut and liked it. Cherry or Maple and Black should work due to nice contrast.

I know of a demo pair of Walnut/Silver available in VA (save some bucks), so I was going to point it out if you were interested.

They come with a nice grill cover that attaches with magnets. Everything (drivers, rivits,....) is covered except the stand.

They come with a nice grill cover that attaches with magnets. Everything (drivers, rivits,....) is covered except the stand.

Yeah he put those on at the end to show me them. I liked them better without, but will most likely keep them on to protect the drivers (even though they already have metal grills protecting them).

I'm in the process of upgrading my Linn AV51 fully active system (17 amps!) and the Artikulat is where I am heading.

I absolutely adore the sound of the Komris, but the Domestic CFO said its either her or the Komris (seems like a fair swap) and as she is a divorce lawyer, I'm afriad the Komris are not an option.

So the Artikulats are a very nice solution, although the size of the center speaker was a real shock..

And I think maple with balck fish plate is the only way to go...

Mark :)

BTW, I think they sound better without the grills, I've always run my AV51 system without the grills...

WRT to Linn being around in 10 years, I think they will outlast me, for the simple reason that that are a Scottish company run with a fiscal attitude that shames all the other manufacturers - they have no debt, make a healthy profit, they aren't owned by a parent who will dump them when the parent hits hard times.

What is more likely is that Linn will replace the Artikulats with something that sounds better for half the price in 5-10 years time. then you will find yourself on the upgrade treadmill...

Mark
:)

BTW, I think they sound better without the grills, I've always run my AV51 system without the grills...

WRT to Linn being around in 10 years, I think they will outlast me, for the simple reason that that are a Scottish company run with a fiscal attitude that shames all the other manufacturers - they have no debt, make a healthy profit, they aren't owned by a parent who will dump them when the parent hits hard times.

What is more likely is that Linn will replace the Artikulats with something that sounds better for half the price in 5-10 years time. then you will find yourself on the upgrade treadmill...

Mark
:)

I'd like to see a picture of that color combo. Somehow I think they'll maintain the price level even with new technology. I'm guessing I'll still be happy, though.

Check out the NHT Xd system if you're into multi-amping. FWIW, while I haven't heard the Artikulats, we replaced a $25K Linn system with Xd and the owner said "not even close". NHT and Linn are doing the same thing, but NHT is better at speaker design in general, at least for the price. I know how NHT stacks up to a $25K Linn system, not sure about a $50K or $75K one. I think Xd is better than the Meridian DSP8000s, for instance, the other active heavy-weight. www.nhtxd.com Looks aren't as nice as the Linn, but it would be a good listen before spending massive amounts of money as it's one of the few other completely active systems on the consumer market.

Check out the NHT Xd system if you're into multi-amping. FWIW, while I haven't heard the Artikulats, we replaced a $25K Linn system with Xd and the owner said "not even close". NHT and Linn are doing the same thing, but NHT is better at speaker design in general, at least for the price. I know how NHT stacks up to a $25K Linn system, not sure about a $50K or $75K one. I think Xd is better than the Meridian DSP8000s, for instance, the other active heavy-weight. www.nhtxd.com Looks aren't as nice as the Linn, but it would be a good listen before spending massive amounts of money as it's one of the few other completely active systems on the consumer market.

I always thought that most Linn speakers sounded good, but lacked bass. This isn't true of the Artikulat that essentially has subwoofers built into each speaker. This NHT system looks interesting because of the DEQX stuff. I have to admit that I'm intrigued by DEQX.

Check out the NHT Xd system if you're into multi-amping.
NHT importers have had a chequered history here in the UK, so buying them would be a bit risky and finding somewhere to audition them would be a trial. That said, the last NHT speakers I auditioned about 5 years ago were mighty impressive for the money, but the NHT Xd's just failed the Domestic CFO test - she says they look "fugly", albeit I got an ever worse reaction when the Domestic CFO saw the size of the Artikulat Center speaker..

Mark
:)

I always thought that most Linn speakers sounded good, but lacked bass. This isn't true of the Artikulat that essentially has subwoofers built into each speaker. This NHT system looks interesting because of the DEQX stuff. I have to admit that I'm intrigued by DEQX.

My customer tried DEQX with his Espeks and it made a very large difference to him, but after awhile, he tried Xd and he felt the DEQX-oriented engineering of the Xd made all the difference in total performance. I think Linn is taking the right direction except that the price is truly stratospheric.

NHT importers have had a chequered history here in the UK, so buying them would be a bit risky and finding somewhere to audition them would be a trial. That said, the last NHT speakers I auditioned about 5 years ago were mighty impressive for the money, but the NHT Xd's just failed the Domestic CFO test - she says they look "fugly", albeit I got an ever worse reaction when the Domestic CFO saw the size of the Artikulat Center speaker..)

Did you see the new "special dark" color? It's actually quite attractive and classy - a combo of piano black and a rich reddish brown lacquer. The purple on maple look is a bit......odd to be kind. I've gotten used to all the insults, but people *do* really like the new color, it's totally different and much more complementary.

My customer tried DEQX with his Espeks and it made a very large difference to him, but after awhile, he tried Xd and he felt the DEQX-oriented engineering of the Xd made all the difference in total performance. I think Linn is taking the right direction except that the price is truly stratospheric.

Interesting... Yes the pricing is a concern. It opens up so many options that you can't help but hesitate to make that commitment. Unless of course that money is a drop in the bucket for you.

Interesting... Yes the pricing is a concern. It opens up so many options that you can't help but hesitate to make that commitment. Unless of course that money is a drop in the bucket for you.

I think Xd is just about the 8th wonder of the world, *but* it only matters if you actually like the sound, which is unlike any other speaker I've ever heard. It seems to me, in 10 years or so, that kind of "sound" will be nearly ubiquitous, but right now, it's like the first time you taste saffron ice cream.

I think Xd is just about the 8th wonder of the world, *but* it only matters if you actually like the sound, which is unlike any other speaker I've ever heard. It seems to me, in 10 years or so, that kind of "sound" will be nearly ubiquitous, but right now, it's like the first time you taste saffron ice cream.

You are kidding right? The Xd may be a technology departure from the mainstream, but it s hardly earth shattering to listen to. Its just an ok deal for the money. I would rather pay alot more for a better speaker. And its so fugly.

You are kidding right? The Xd may be a technology departure from the mainstream, but it s hardly earth shattering to listen to. Its just an ok deal for the money. I would rather pay alot more for a better speaker. And its so fugly.

Why would I be kidding? The measurements indicate it's substantially more accurate, lower in distortion and with better dispersion than most any high-end speaker in existence.

There are only two possible reactions to the speakers. One is "the best/one of the best I've ever heard" or "Eh". If you're one of those people that expect the speaker to create some magnificent flavor, instead of just passing through the signal unaltered, these certainly aren't for you. What you mean to say is that you would rather pay a lot more for a more colored speaker and that is fine. I suspect you haven't seen the new finish either.

I've been selling high-end speakers for 15+ years. Xd is, overall, the most accurate and transparent speaker I've ever sold. Moreso than Genesis, M-L, B&W, JMLab, Von Schweikert, for example.

There are only two possible reactions to the speakers. One is "the best/one of the best I've ever heard" or "Eh". If you're one of those people that expect the speaker to create some magnificent flavor, instead of just passing through the signal unaltered, these certainly aren't for you. What you mean to say is that you would rather pay a lot more for a more colored speaker and that is fine. I suspect you haven't seen the new finish either.


Just because I have a different subjective opinion from you, how does that make me prefer "colored speaker"?!?! Excuse me. Not only are you not able to read and comprehend English, but you obviously lack any social graces whatsoever.


Why would I be kidding? The measurements indicate it's substantially more accurate, lower in distortion and with better dispersion than most any high-end speaker in existence.


Exactly. Your "most any" is my "some". Let me repeat "I would rather pay alot more for a better speaker". Its simple English, please try and comprehend and be civil about it.


I suspect you haven't seen the new finish either.


I have seen the latest finishes, the Xds remain among the fugliest speakers I've experienced in all of my 30+ years of audiophile experience, I guess theres just no accounting for bad taste among chumps.

Just because I have a different subjective opinion from you, how does that make me prefer "colored speaker"?!?! Excuse me. Not only are you not able to read and comprehend English, but you obviously lack any social graces whatsoever.

I read and comprehend English wonderfully, thank you. As for "social graces", you started off by saying "are you kidding me?" as a demeaning insult. That's fine, I can take that. But, yes, if you prefer a more colored speaker, you're not alone, many people do. What makes me think you prefer a more colored speaker is that it's difficult to find any speaker made that is *less* colored than Xd. Many people find that boring because it doesn't enhance the music. In 10 years, many high-end speakers will sound very much like this and others will continue to pander to the flavor of the day.

Exactly. Your "most any" is my "some". Let me repeat "I would rather pay alot more for a better speaker". Its simple English, please try and comprehend and be civil about it.

Show me the measurements of this "better" speaker. If you're saying "I would rather pay more for a speaker I prefer" that is one thing, if you're saying "I would rather pay more for a *better* speaker", show me objective data that supports "better". As in, more accurate, lower distortion and more coherent dispersion. Otherwise, you're expressing a preference, not any reasonable assertion of superiority. Ice cream may taste better to you, but it certainly isn't "better" than baked salmon and vegetables.

I have seen the latest finishes, the Xds remain among the fugliest speakers I've experienced in all of my 30+ years of audiophile experience, I guess theres just no accounting for bad taste among chumps.

"Fugly"? "Chumps?" Very socially graceful! Way to show me manners. A real "chump" spends more money for things that have no influence on sound or is objectively inferior for more money.

So, show me the speakers are "better" and show me the measurements that support it.

Show me the measurements of this "better" speaker. If you're saying "I would rather pay more for a speaker I prefer" that is one thing, if you're saying "I would rather pay more for a *better* speaker", show me objective data that supports "better". As in, more accurate, lower distortion and more coherent dispersion. Otherwise, you're expressing a preference, not any reasonable assertion of superiority. Ice cream may taste better to you, but it certainly isn't "better" than baked salmon and vegetables.

John,

Forget the self-righteous clap-trap about the Xd being objectively "superior"

The NHT Xd is optimized to have a flat-frequency response; but that's NOT the be all and
end all of speaker quality.

John doesn't understand this because he doesn't have the mathematical background to
understand the mathematics behind digital filters - but digital filters aren't "perfection";
there are design compromises to be made in the digital domain also.

The Xd may be flat in the frequency domain; but it DISTORTs in the conjugate domain; the
temporal domain. In a listening test, I noted significant temporal distortion of cymbal crashes,
for instance.

Flat frequency response is no more a "gold-standard" of speaker quality than the old THD -
total harmonic distortion is a "gold-standard" of amplifier quality. THD was the audio
"snake oil" of the '70s.

I don't believe that human hearing is so intolerant of non-flat frequency response that we have
to have a speaker with "ruler-flat" response. It's obvious that humans can tolerate, and even
be oblivious to, significant perturbations in the frequency response. However, I do believe that
human hearing is quite sensitive to temporal response - the time domain.

As John Atkinson's measurements show; the filters in the Xd are "acausal" - they will produce
sound before they are supposed to. That leads to the Xd "messing up" the microdynamics of
transients; even though it gets the time-averaged frequency response right.

However, the acausality, and poor microdynamics is the deal-breaker for me; as well as
its mediocre reproduction of guitar; which is the instrument I play.

If someone is contemplating buying an NHT Xd; listen to it extensively before buying.

As they used to say on Hill Steet Blues; "BE CAREFUL out there!"

I read and comprehend English wonderfully, thank you. As for "social graces", you started off by saying "are you kidding me?" as a demeaning insult. That's fine, I can take that. But, yes, if you prefer a more colored speaker, you're not alone, many people do. What makes me think you prefer a more colored speaker is that it's difficult to find any speaker made that is *less* colored than Xd. Many people find that boring because it doesn't enhance the music. In 10 years, many high-end speakers will sound very much like this and others will continue to pander to the flavor of the day.

Show me the measurements of this "better" speaker. If you're saying "I would rather pay more for a speaker I prefer" that is one thing, if you're saying "I would rather pay more for a *better* speaker", show me objective data that supports "better". As in, more accurate, lower distortion and more coherent dispersion. Otherwise, you're expressing a preference, not any reasonable assertion of superiority. Ice cream may taste better to you, but it certainly isn't "better" than baked salmon and vegetables.

"Fugly"? "Chumps?" Very socially graceful! Way to show me manners. A real "chump" spends more money for things that have no influence on sound or is objectively inferior for more money.

So, show me the speakers are "better" and show me the measurements that support it.


Ha, you so screwed buddy, you just don't know it yet :) You postulate that no speaker exist in this universe thats better than the Xd. I just need to show you one better speaker to completely destroy your dumbass assertion. Once done, I hope you'll STFU already on your Xds.... though I'm sure you'll come up with some other delusionary ideas of why the Xds are better.

Exhibit A.
Cumulative Spectral-Decay plot of the Xd
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/Nxttdfig02.jpg

Cumulative Spectral-Decay plot of my more expensive and better speaker
http://stereophile.com/images/archivesart/rokantfig2.jpg

Ha! Which speaker do you think is the more coloured! :rolleyes:



Exhibit B.
Anechoic response on tweeter axis @ 50" averaged across 30° horizontal window of the Xd
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/Nxttdfig07.jpg

Anechoic response on tweeter axis @ 50" averaged across 30° horizontal window of my more expensive and better speaker
http://stereophile.com/images/archivesart/rokantfig4.jpg

Fair enough, neither here nor there, puts and takes on both sides, impossible to say which is objectively better.


Exhibit C.
Lateral response family @ 50" of the Xd
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/Nxttdfig08.jpg

Lateral response family @ 50" of my more expensive and better speaker
http://stereophile.com/images/archivesart/rokantfig5.jpg

Though the resolution of the graphs may defer, my better and more expensive speakers clearly demonstrate superior lateral response beyond 5kHz. Ha!

... continued.

Exhibit D.
Vertical response family @ 50" of the Xd
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/Nxttdfig09.jpg

Vertical response family @ 50" of my better and more expensive speakers
http://stereophile.com/images/archivesart/rokantfig6.jpg

Once again, though the resolution of the graphs may defer, my better and more expensive speakers clearly demonstrate superior vertical response beyond 5kHz. Ha!

Holy Moses chump! Face it, the Xds are hardly superior to the best speakers out there. I'll leave it as a weekend exercise for you to find out what my speakers are as you lick your open and bleeding wounds :)

By the way, here are some illuminating exhibits of subjective comments on the Xds from people with far more experience and expertise than you :)


I listened again to the half-step–spaced tonebursts on Editor's Choice. Despite the revised filters, I could still hear the slight modulation noise accompanying the tonebursts. Probably not too much should be made of this phenomenon; I mention it only because I had never heard it before with conventional loudspeakers.



What about the high frequencies? The veiling that had bothered me was much reduced, the top octaves having more air apparent. Perhaps more significant was the minimizing of a slight mid-treble "shoutiness" that had limited maximum volume with the original filters.



It's true that the NHT Xd system still lacks ultimate dynamic range, but there's only so much you can ask in terms of ultimate loudness from a pair of drive-units with a radiating diameter of just 3".



Although the Xd is pretty flat, I could hear that the lower midrange sounded a touch "up" in comparison to the top end, which, obviously, came across as a touch "down." This made things like Cash’s voice sound a little more forward than normal -- not much, just a wee bit.



As for the bass level, well, that’s a different story because it can be adjusted with the XdW’s level control. But regardless of where I set that control, the XdA satellites seemed to emphasize the lower mids and nothing with the Mode switch changed it. (Mode seems to affect response lower than the region I’m talking about.) However, "up" or "down" just a touch is not necessarily a good or bad thing; it’s just the way the Xd sounds -- likely the way the system has been voiced -- and many people do like a speaker with a bit of added presence, which the NHT Xd system certainly has.




The XdW simply didn’t seem to like this low-level, bass-light music. Although it has an on-off switch, the XdW puts it into standby mode when it has idled too long. The low listening levels and the absence of consistent bass made the XdW turn on and off throughout listening, which was irritating. The turn-on is heard as a very light "thump," but it’s enough of a "thump" to be distracting -- to the point where I stopped using the speakers for background listening.

By the way, here are some illuminating exhibits of subjective comments on the Xds from people with far more experience and expertise than you :)

Kalman Rubinson, Stereophile reviewer; from his November 2005 review of the Xd:

The other area of distinction was the midrange, where the Xd's presentation of voices never seemed
lacking but rarely gave me the shiver of eerie recognition that I get from the B&Ws or the Revels.


Kalman now uses the B&Ws referred to above, the 802Ds; as his reference system.


Cumulative Spectral-Decay plot of the Xd


Note the nasty ridges at about 110 Hz, and at about 2 kHz; which is precisely where the
digital crossovers are in frequency. Perhaps this is the "ringing" one usually experiences
with high-order / high-slope crossovers, such as those employed in the Xd.

Ha, you so screwed buddy, you just don't know it yet You postulate that no speaker exist in this universe thats better than the Xd. I just need to show you one better speaker to completely destroy your dumbass assertion. Once done, I hope you'll STFU already on your Xds.... though I'm sure you'll come up with some other delusionary ideas of why the Xds are better....

Ha! Which speaker do you think is the more coloured! ...

Andrew,

It appears that you have made a most convincing case.

As usual, John is flat out WRONG!!!

Game, Set, and MATCH... to Andrew.

wow - this thread has taken a turn...any more comments on the Artikulat? :D

Fantastic! Another episode of "Emotionally Unbalanced Physicist!"

JForget the self-righteous clap-trap about the Xd being objectively "superior" The NHT Xd is optimized to have a flat-frequency response; but that's NOT the be all and
end all of speaker quality.

No shiite Sherlock. Xd is also optimized for low distortion, low spectral decay, good transient behavior, low cabinet effects and broad, coherent dispersion. The other really important things in sound. Your last sentence shows how incredibly uninformed you are with respect to the technology involved and what it does (as usual).


John doesn't understand this because he doesn't have the mathematical background to
understand the mathematics behind digital filters - but digital filters aren't "perfection";
there are design compromises to be made in the digital domain also.

Hey, you don't have the "audio background" to understand the acoustics behind speaker design, but it doesn't stop you from pretending :D You don't have to understand the "math" to understand the effect. Tell an archer he doesn't understand the mathematics of what he does and he'll shoot you right in the middle of your pointy forehead.

The Xd may be flat in the frequency domain; but it DISTORTs in the conjugate domain; the
temporal domain.

Actually, the word is CORRECTS. Wilsons distort in the temporal domain.

In a listening test, I noted significant temporal distortion of cymbal crashes,
for instance.[/quote]

Really? How do you "note" that which doesn't exist in science?
"Note" any UFOs lately?

However, I do believe that
human hearing is quite sensitive to temporal response - the time domain.

And I believe in the Giant Spaghetti Monster. Science actually says the opposite of what you "believe". Look it up. Besides, if it were true, that only plays to Xd's strengths.

As John Atkinson's measurements show; the filters in the Xd are "acausal" - they will produce
sound before they are supposed to. That leads to the Xd "messing up" the microdynamics of
transients; even though it gets the time-averaged frequency response right.

Perhaps, but they also largely cancel. However, by lowering the crossover slope you can lower that effect if you like, but apparently the NHT crew felt the performance was better at the slope. You pick your compromise.


However, the acausality, and poor microdynamics is the deal-breaker for me; as well as
its mediocre reproduction of guitar; which is the instrument I play.

Oh, PLEASE. Do you know how many guitar players come in my store and go "Holy SHITE!" when they hear Xd? Gimme a break.

If someone is contemplating buying an NHT Xd; listen to it extensively before buying.

Again, no shiit. People should do that with *every* speaker before buying. The problem for you is, the more people listen, the more they like. I've had people that didn't think they liked it at first but kept coming back over and over and fell in love. And I have people that call or write e-mails to thank me all the time for their Xds. You know, the ones they chose over conventional high-end.

wow - this thread has taken a turn...any more comments on the Artikulat? :D

Good luck with that now. Once Morbius and "Andrew" begin their anti-progress attacks.......

Fortunately, I have a $20K system to install today, so it should be quiet for a little while. Maybe "Andrew" will figure out how to read a graph between now and then.

No shiite Sherlock. Xd is also optimized for low distortion, low spectral decay, good transient behavior, low cabinet effects and broad, coherent dispersion. The other really important things in sound.
John,

The problem is you don't understand the mathematics here. These quantities are inter-related
so you can't solve all the problems simultaneously. A good reference here is Keith Howard's
article "Ringing False: Digital Audio's Ubiquitous Filter" from the January 2006 issue of
Stereophile.


Your last sentence shows how incredibly uninformed you are with respect to the technology involved and what it does (as usual).

The technology is hardly "rocket science" - and I quite informed in matters of technology.


Hey, you don't have the "audio background" to understand the acoustics behind speaker design, but it doesn't stop you from pretending :D

I don't have the "audio background"? When I was studying for my doctorate at
MIT, I used to go to the Barker Engineering Library in the Great Dome and would
read the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. I've read all the seminal papers
of Thiele [ not to be confused with Thiel ] and Small. I've followed the field of
audio engineering in the journals for years.

I think that's a better background than being a salesman.


You don't have to understand the "math" to understand the effect. Tell an archer he doesn't understand the mathematics of what he does and he'll shoot you right in the middle of your pointy forehead.

This isn't about audio - it's about your claims that the Xd is "objectively superior". You want to
bash people over the head that somehow "science" sayts the Xd is better. Well that takes the
discussion out of the realm of audio and into the scientific realm. For someone who understands
as little about science and mathematics as you do - someone who doesn't understand they
need to keep units straight. Remember how you claimed that the ratio of two quantities
supposedly yielded a "ratio of forces" was OK even thought the quantities being ratioed didn't
have units of force? You thought it was OK because the units cancelled.

The point about knowing the mathematics; and again I refer you to Keith Howard's article in
Stereophile, is that there are constraints dictated by the math. You can't optimize everything
as you claim.


Actually, the word is CORRECTS. Wilsons distort in the temporal domain.


That's not what I heard. I heard a Wilson produce a very realistic and convincing reproduction;
whereas the Xd called attention to the fact that it was a reproduction - "artificial sounding" on the
same source material.


"In a listening test, I noted significant temporal distortion of cymbal crashes,
for instance."

Really? How do you "note" that which doesn't exist in science?
"Note" any UFOs lately?

A cymbal crash goes through a very definite transient. You have the initial strike of the
drumstick, followed by a "ringing" of the cymbal as the vibrations radiate from the struck point
but have not reached the outer boundary of the cymbal. Then you have the "shimmer" as the
vibrational waves reflect from the cymbals edge and form a very complex vibrational pattern
as the wave criss-cross the disc of the cymbal. All that definitely DOES exists in science.

The Wilsons deliniated the transient with aplomb; the Xd just kind of "mushed" it all together.


And I believe in the Giant Spaghetti Monster. Science actually says the opposite of what you "believe". Look it up. Besides, if it were true, that only plays to Xd's strengths.

Again I refer the reader to Keith Howard's article. One of the reasons that human hearing can
recognize the digital artifacts of digitally-implemented filters is because of our sensitivity to
temporal effects. Keith Howard notes that human hearing easily recognizes the "acausal"
nature of some filters. These are filters that, for example, in the case of an impulse will vibrate
BEFORE the main impulse - hence the term "acausal" meaning "not respecting cause and
effect - an effect occuring before the cause". Human hearing is quite bothered by effects such
as "acausal" ringing. John Atkinson demonstrated that the Xd's filters are "acausal" with his
impulse tests.


Perhaps, but they also largely cancel. However, by lowering the crossover slope you can lower that effect if you like, but apparently the NHT crew felt the performance was better at the slope. You pick your compromise.
Are we going to go through this "acoustic cancellation" nonsense again. I told you I emailed
Kim Ryrie of DEQX with your nonsense explanation - since you attributed it to him - and his
response said I was correct.

If you want to be scientific about it - experiment trumps theory. If it "acoustically cancelled"; then
John Atkinson's microphone wouldn't have heard it. But it DID. Experimental PROOF that your
nonsense "cancellation theory" is invalid.


Oh, PLEASE. Do you know how many guitar players come in my store and go "Holy SHITE!" when they hear Xd? Gimme a break.

Lots of guitar players LIKE distortion. They put "fuzz-boxes" on their gurtars to INCREASE
distortion.

http://www.musiciansfriend.com/product/Dunlop-Jimi-Hendrix-Classic-Fuzz-Pedal?sku=151209

However, acoustic guitar players like myself want to hear a reproduction of the instrument that
sounds like what we hear when we actually play a guitar.


Again, no shiit. People should do that with *every* speaker before buying. The problem for you is, the more people listen, the more they like. I've had people that didn't think they liked it at first but kept coming back over and over and fell in love. And I have people that call or write e-mails to thank me all the time for their Xds. You know, the ones they chose over conventional high-end.

I guess it just shows that NHT's "guerilla marketing" tactics work. You keep badgering people
how bad and colored any other equipment is; and how "objectively superior" the Xd is; and the
fickle lemmings with no backbone will be won-over.

I prefer it when I like the product on first go round, and subsequent auditions reinforce my
initial opinion. I won't be "badgered" into a purchase by an audio salesman.

Why does NHT countenance such behavior from one of their representatives?

Fortunately, I have a $20K system to install today, so it should be quiet for a little while. Maybe "Andrew" will figure out how to read a graph between now and then.


"John", even a 4-year old can see how coloured the Xds are compared to my better and more expensive speaker. Let me reproduce the graphs here again for you. Please explain to all of us how I need to learn how to read this graph.

Xd's Cumulative Spectral-Decay plot of speaker cabinet
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/Nxttdfig02.jpg

My better and more expensive speaker's Cumulative Spectral-Decay plot of speaker cabinet
http://stereophile.com/images/archivesart/rokantfig2.jpg

I am tempted to produce another dozen measurements of other speakers that show OBJECTIVELY that the Xds are not in fact that superior at all when you consider the high-end, but I can see it wil be a waste of time since you seem to be slightly intellectually challenged. Sure at $6K the Xds are probably good value for money, but we are not discussing value for money here, not in this $20K forum. I, like many others in this particular forum, are not interested in value for money, we're interested in ultimate performance, the Xds are not ultimate performance.


Thomsen, sorry for the digression ;)

Thomsen, sorry for the digression ;)

Maybe another approach...anyone have the charts for the Artikulat? :D

I am tempted to produce another dozen measurements of other speakers that show OBJECTIVELY that the Xds are not in fact that superior at all when you consider the high-end, but I can see it wil be a waste of time since you seem to be slightly intellectually challenged.
Andrew,

I would have to disagree with this last statement that John is "slightly intellectually
challenged".

There's nothing "slight" about it. John actually thinks he's fooling people with
his claims of superior knowledge; and when he can't refute hard data he makes
the childish insinuation that Andrew can't read the graph that's very clear in its
meaning.

People have to realize Jonh is just a shill for NHT.

Andrew gives us hard data.

John just "makes stuff up" out of whole cloth; like the acoustic cancellation of
the Xd impulse response in order to make NHT look good. Anything to sell NHT.
[How a company like NHT can countenance such behavior by one of its
representatives is beyond me]

One takes a not so special speaker and agressively markets it to the n-th degree.

That's the formula Bose has been using for years.

Just consider that and NHT's countenance of John if one is considering an NHT product.

BTW, I think they sound better without the grills, I've always run my AV51 system without the grills...



I hate to interrupt the fight ... but I had to agree completely with Joe on this point.

Never in my life have I heard as dramatic a change by simply removing grilles than when I pulled them off my 5140's. Those grilles might as well be solid sheets of steel considering how much music they blocked.

Okay guys... round 2. :)

Okay guys... round 2. :)
Jim,

I've said my peace. I just hope someday NHT finds the integrity to reign John in.

Maybe another approach...anyone have the charts for the Artikulat? :D

No, but there's some on the Akurat which uses some of the same technology, so while I apologize for the long-winded defense I'm about to mount, I *will* mix in some info on the Akurat and its basic design. I will say, you are a good sport! I wish everyone were.

Ha, you so screwed buddy, you just don't know it yet :)

Yeah, we'll you're so *not* Chinese, "Andrew"! I'd like to see a picture of you with "your" $41,000/pr Rockports :p This response isn't for you, it's for other people that might not understand the twists you're putting on this.

You postulate that no speaker exist in this universe thats better than the Xd.

No, I do believe I said this - "The measurements indicate it's substantially more accurate, lower in distortion and with better dispersion than most any high-end speaker in existence. " That's entirely different because it is qualified. It's not impossible to make an analog speaker that measures better than Xd, it's just very difficult. It's kinda like the Michael Jordan of speakers :)

Exhibit A.
Cumulative Spectral-Decay plot of the Xd
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/Nxttdfig02.jpg

Cumulative Spectral-Decay plot of my more expensive and better speaker
http://stereophile.com/images/archivesart/rokantfig2.jpg

Linn Akurat
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/Lakfig2.jpg

Actually, I'll agree with you in this, the Rockports are heavier and better built than Xd and much better built than most other speakers that Stereophile will measure. All things being equal, that would be a great thing to have the cabinet that inert. But it is $35K more than Xd. The Linn Akurat does pretty well too. Not exceptional, not bad. I suspect the Artikulat has better cabinets though.

One thing that isn't noted, however is that about 90% of the energy, particularly the very low frequency blurr you see is actually the stand. I spoke with Jack about this and can't remember his exact answer, because it's been awhile, but it had something to do with resonances or reflected energy in the stand and, I think, the signal being sent included very low frequencies that wouldn't normally go to the satellite. There is also the situation that if you move the speaker around by the head, it will loosen its grip to the stand and then needs to be tightened. Was the speaker firmly attached to the stand? We don't know. What we do know is that what you're mainly seeing here is an excitation of a frequency that won't even be passed into the speaker and if the stand doesn't live up to expectations in that regard, the best thing a "serious audiophile" can do is buy a nice $250/pr sand filled stand and *bingo* problem resolved.

There is another problem with this type of measurement is that it only measures the direct resonances of one part of the speaker. In the case of the Rockport, they measured the woofer section, in the case of the Xd, they measured the satellite. What happens if you measure the same panel on both speakers? We don't know. What happens if you cut the sub 120Hz frequencies from the NHTs? We don't know. What happens if you you attach accelerometers to every face and measure the *total* resonance of the cabinet? We don't know. It's like trying to understand the Grand Canyon from a single snapshot. However, I'll be glad to give this one snapshot to the Antares as it deserves it.

Exhibit B.
Anechoic response on tweeter axis @ 50" averaged across 30° horizontal window of the Xd
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/Nxttdfig07.jpg

Anechoic response on tweeter axis @ 50" averaged across 30° horizontal window of my more expensive and better speaker
http://stereophile.com/images/archivesart/rokantfig4.jpg

http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/Lakfig4.jpg
Linn Akurat

My only concern here is that Linn has some serious issues in the upper midrange/lower treble area with this dome array. Domes are historically tough to get right. You'll see further problems in the off axis measurements and that can be an issue since the Artikulat uses the same array, I believe.

http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/Nxd2fig2.jpg
Updated FR measurements with the latest DSP alogrithms and commentary by John Atkinson:

The red trace in fig.3 is the in-room response taken in an identical manner with the 150Hz crossover/EQ. Overall it looks very similar, but there are detail differences that correlate with the listening impressions. There is more energy in the 80Hz, 100Hz, and 125Hz bands, indicating better integration between the subwoofers and satellites. That slight bump at 2kHz is gone, and the top two octaves are between 1–3dB higher in level. The response now falls between ±1.25dB limits all the way from 80Hz to 16kHz, which is simply extraordinary in-room performance. Extraordinary! - John Atkinson

Fair enough, neither here nor there, puts and takes on both sides, impossible to say which is objectively better.

Yes, but I noticed you missed the latest measurements - that's an advantage on a hardware/software upgradeable speaker vs a $41,000 "you got what you got" :)


Exhibit C.
Lateral response family @ 50" of the Xd
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/Nxttdfig08.jpg

Lateral response family @ 50" of my more expensive and better speaker
http://stereophile.com/images/archivesart/rokantfig5.jpg

Lateral response of the Linn Akurat
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/Lakfig5.jpg

Here's where the Linn clearly has some issues that could come up in listening. That's pretty odd behavior. It's always a big warning sign when the a driver has more energy off axis than on. Even the Xd has a problem with this in the tweeter *but* it's ultra sonic and shouldn't be an issue unless you buy them at the age of 2. The huge Linn dip at 3000Hz followed by large peaks just above that would really cause some subjective issues in most rooms and was noted in the review.

Though the resolution of the graphs may defer, my better and more expensive speakers clearly demonstrate superior lateral response beyond 5kHz. Ha![/quote]

Umm, no, what it shows is that it is very good out to 15 degrees. The NHT is measured out to *90* degrees. Why is that? Stereophile typically shows out to just before a speaker gets really bad *especially* if that speaker is expensive. If they were "fair and balanced", they'd run all of them to 90 degrees so you could make direct comparisons. This is why I tossed in the "learn to read graphs" comment. While you can't say with dead certainty what will happen further off axis with the Rockport, you can certainly take a guess that it isn't that great or it would have been included. In fact, generally speaking, the worse a speaker performs off axis, the more limited the information provided by Stereophile on its behavior.

Antares vertical dispersion (only a 25 degree window)
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/rokantfig6.jpg

Linn vertical dispersion (only a 25 degree window)
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/Lakfig6.jpg

Xd vertical dispersion (over a 90 degree window)

http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/Nxttdfig09.jpg

IOW, no, the Antares doesn't have better off axis dispersion, not in the horizontal, certainly not in the vertical. It doesn't have the drivers or the crossovers to make that happen and most of the new and expensive vogue tweeters have poor off axis dispersion.

So far it looks like:

Cabinet resonance - winner Antares
Accuracy - winner Xd
Horizontal dispersion - winner Xd
Vertical dispersion - winner Xd

By the way, here are some illuminating exhibits of subjective comments on the Xds from people with far more experience and expertise than you :)

Well, of course, but what I can do is provide ten times as many extremely positive comments as you can provide negative. However, that would take *pages* of this thread and they've been published for those that want to see them. No speaker is perfect and the Xd is probably the most written about speakers in recent history so if you can't find quibbles, well, you're not paying attention. Fortunately, I never said Xd was perfect, just an evolutionary leap forward.

Someone at the start of this thread queried whether Linn would be around in ten years time? As someone who lives in the UK, Linn has been around since the seventies. They started with their LP12 but have very successfully built up an entire product range. Their products are only available through their dealers.
As far as I'm aware the company is still privately owned and appears to be well managed.
Used to use Linn equipment, but has since moved on to Chord Electronics.
So even though I don't use the brand, I definitely think they are here for the forseeable future.

John,

The problem is you don't understand the mathematics here. These quantities are inter-related
so you can't solve all the problems simultaneously. A good reference here is Keith Howard's
article "Ringing False: Digital Audio's Ubiquitous Filter" from the January 2006 issue of
Stereophile.

Ummm, yes, well, I don't understand the mathematics of a tomato, but I know what it tastes like. Besides, I never said that you can solve all of the problems simultaneously. At least not at the moment. But digital solves a whole lot of them, now doesn't it?

The technology is hardly "rocket science" - and I quite informed in matters of technology.

You just don't understand how it *applies* as I regularly demonstrate.

I don't have the "audio background"? When I was studying for my doctorate at
MIT, I used to go to the Barker Engineering Library in the Great Dome and would
read the Journal of the Audio Engineering Society. I've read all the seminal papers
of Thiele [ not to be confused with Thiel ] and Small. I've followed the field of
audio engineering in the journals for years.

I think that's a better background than being a salesman.

And yet you have the comprehension of a turtle......why?

The point about knowing the mathematics; and again I refer you to Keith Howard's article in
Stereophile, is that there are constraints dictated by the math. You can't optimize everything
as you claim.

Debunk one of them. You tried with dispersion, but simply failed because you don't factor in system behavior.

Are we going to go through this "acoustic cancellation" nonsense again. I told you I emailed
Kim Ryrie of DEQX with your nonsense explanation - since you attributed it to him - and his
response said I was correct.

If you want to be scientific about it - experiment trumps theory. If it "acoustically cancelled"; then
John Atkinson's microphone wouldn't have heard it. But it DID. Experimental PROOF that your
nonsense "cancellation theory" is invalid.

Allow me to call you out and have John Atkinson himself correct you:

What can also be seen from fig.11 is that each drive-unit's step is preceded by some low-frequency ringing. But because the tweeter's and woofer's acoustic outputs appear to have opposite polarities, this pre-ringing should to a large extent cancel, at least on the tweeter axis. That this does in fact happen is shown by the XdS's overall step response (fig.12), the tweeter's positive-going step smoothly handing over to the woofer's negative-going step, this in turn correlating with the superb frequency-domain integration between the two drive-units seen in fig.7.

What about that paragraph and associated graphs do you not comprehend. It backs up what I've said about Xd and digital crossovers all along and ironically, almost to the words I've used. "Largely cancel" is what I do believe I've said.

However, acoustic guitar players like myself want to hear a reproduction of the instrument that
sounds like what we hear when we actually play a guitar.

I'm talking about acoustic guitar players, Dr know it all. I'm also a drummer, so I understand how cymbals produce sound. What I don't recognize is your ability to know the difference between a good reproduction and not.

I guess it just shows that NHT's "guerilla marketing" tactics work. You keep badgering people
how bad and colored any other equipment is; and how "objectively superior" the Xd is; and the
fickle lemmings with no backbone will be won-over.

It's called education, nothing more. How the heck am I going to badger someone into buying something?!? I just brought it up as a similar alternative to the Linns, but at a much lower price. Whether or not anyone would buy it would simply be a matter of whether they *like it* or not.

I won't be "badgered" into a purchase by an audio salesman.

Oh please, you're the one that follows me around harassing and insulting me if I mention Xds, Mr. Insecurity Problem. Interestingly, I have a customer with Divas that might be picking up a pair of Xds. He was floored by them. Secondary system and all, but I guess he didn't hear what you heard because he didn't think "cone and dome" speakers could do what he was hearing.

Why does NHT countenance such behavior from one of their representatives?

Because I'm a positive force in the universe and more than doubled my sales last year? :p

Someone at the start of this thread queried whether Linn would be around in ten years time? As someone who lives in the UK, Linn has been around since the seventies......so even though I don't use the brand, I definitely think they are here for the forseeable future.

I'm always surprised at how stable and cash stable most British brands seem to be. Almost to the point of not caring whether they sell or not, kind of "above the fray" so to speak. Meridian, Rega, B&W, etc all just seem to be very well managed. I'm sure that's part of the allure.

Here's a few more data points:

Linn individual driver/port responses:
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/Lakfig3.jpg

Rockport individual driver/port responses:
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/rokantfig3.jpg

NHT individual driver responses:
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/Nxd2fig2.jpg

Note that once you get ports involved, you've got lots of interactions and upper bass/low midrange energy that, in essence, acts as distortion. While the Artikulat has servo woofers, which is generally a great thing, they still port at least the upper bass, but maybe even the woofers themselves which doesn't make a lot of sense from an engineering standpoint.

That being said, the Artikulat has some really cool engineering to it. It's a pretty serious system, very much like the big Meridians. I think more and more products should be that ambitious and lower and lower price points. That's why I brought up the Xds, just as a less pricey alternative in the same vein.

I've said my peace. I just hope someday NHT finds the integrity to reign John in.

Hey, I keep hoping Lawrence Livermore can do the same.

As you said, you won't be "badgered" into buying something, I am not going to be "badgered" into not talking about audio, audio products, audio theory, whatever. I actually enjoy this stuff. Feel free to put me on "ignore" if I bother you so much. You're like one of those people that complains about the TV programming, but won't change the channel.

Okay, well, hopefully this one is over for now. Doesn't look like there are many Artikulat owners around AVS, I know not even the local dealer carries them because of the price, but maybe there was something useful contained inside the thread.

Jim,

I've said my peace. I just hope someday NHT finds the integrity to reign John in.

Hey are we talking about real world or are we talking about Morpheus in the world limited matrix? I thought free speech is what is paramount in science.

As for Andrew's graphs, I'm still wondering why he hasn't even identified his "better" speakers after a half dozen posts about how great they are. I mean if they're so great, wouldn't you even mention them once.

As for speakers, I've had the pleasure of Paradigm reference, B&W 803 Nautilus and now the NHT Xds. I've heard some Wilson 7s in a demo and they were great.

I understand the issue of how the Xds sound somewhat different. There is an adjustment for the ear to having reduced distortion, greater dipersion and the DEQX advantages. The sound is somewhat smoother and can ironically be played at higher volumes. When listening at 95db, it doesn't feel like 95db from conventional speakers.

For smaller rooms, there's not going to be much to stack up well to the Xds. They have more flexibility and are perfect for odd shaped rooms as well. They don't have the limitations where you feel a need to use sound materials on the walls, ceilings, etc. That's a huge advantage over conventional designs.

When I had the 803's the best position with sound material on the walls just wasn't plausible. For many people, this will be a similar quandry.

Now for larger rooms, the ability to deliver weight and push air is going to the high end multiple driver speakers. If I had that type of open space, I'd love to have Morbius' speakers. Since I appreciate the high end Wilson performance, I'm sure that would be the best route.

But on the whole the Xds are a pretty impressive in both concept and performance. If the next generation adds multiple drivers in a floor stander, I think they will also take a bigger bite out of the big monster speakers inlcuding Wilson.

What's missing in this whole argument is the very nature of limitation in most 44K (CD) listening. SACD is great and can be aweome but no system, no matter how "high end" is going to trump the 44K (CD) limitation of sound.

And since most people listen to most music in that format, well you can throw mounds of mounds of dollars at the "problem" and it's still not going to overcome this limitation. The human ear wants and deserves more.

Of course you can enjoy Cds on a big high end system. But lacking the fullness of SACD or a good turntable, it's not the be all and end all. And in many respects, the Xd system can stand up to many combinations in the high end, including B&Ws. A lot depends on what source and quality of recording you're playing.

But in terms of value, nothing is coming close to NHT's Xd. I moved from my $20,000 setup and don't shed any tears for it. Now if I buy a big house that might change, but we'll have to wait on that.

Hey, I keep hoping Lawrence Livermore can do the same.


I'm not here representing LLNL's "products" - this isn't the place to promote the "RRW"

You ARE representing NHT!!

Hey are we talking about real world or are we talking about Morpheus in the world limited matrix? I thought free speech is what is paramount in science.


romanesq,

I agree with unbridled free speech; IF you are representing yourself.

However, John is shilling for NHT. He's telling non-NHT owners that their speakers are colored;
while the NHT Xd is "objectively superior". He thinks by badgering people with this clap-trap;
that somehow he is helping NHT. I believe the opposite is true; he's making NHT look bad; it makes
them look like they have to resort to untruthful pressure tactics in order to sell their products.

Thereforre, since NHT's name is being cited here; NHT has a say in how their representative
promotes their products and uses their name. John doesn't own the NHT name; and if he brings
disrepute on that name by his antics; then NHT has the right to have something to say about it.

It's not an abridgement of free speech for NHT to control their representative.

I agree with unbridled free speech; IF you are representing yourself.

I am representing myself. Not NHT, not PSB, not whomever. I talk about things about which I have knowledge.

However, John is shilling for NHT. He's telling non-NHT owners that their speakers are colored;
while the NHT Xd is "objectively superior".

All speakers *are* colored, it's a matter of degree. You should also look up the meaning of the word "shill".

He thinks by badgering people with this clap-trap;
that somehow he is helping NHT. I believe the opposite is true; he's making NHT look bad; it makes
them look like they have to resort to untruthful pressure tactics in order to sell their products.

What "untruthful pressure tactics"?!? OMG, what a victim mentality you have. "someone said something positive about something and now I feel pressured and anxious". For goodness sakes, grow up. People that know me personally will tell you that I'm probably the least "pressure" oriented person they know. How is making a suggestion either "untruthful" or "pressure"?!? I suggested my car to a customer and he went out and bought one three days later. Because I "pressured" him?!? NO. Because it was the ideal fit for his needs. Good lord, you're such an exaggerator and probably the most intellectually dishonest person I've ever seen. Attack, play the victim, attack, play the victim.

Thereforre, since NHT's name is being cited here; NHT has a say in how their representative
promotes their products and uses their name. John doesn't own the NHT name; and if he brings
disrepute on that name by his antics; then NHT has the right to have something to say about it.

How is defending something bring disrepute on it? You are the one in attack mode. I thought you "said your peace". Dude, half your *friends* (if they're willing to admit that) think you're utterly obsessed with me. Seek counseling, would you? All you do is make me look good.

I'm not here representing LLNL's "products" - this isn't the place to promote the "RRW"

So.....what you're saying is that this is a place to talk about......audio?

You ARE representing NHT!!

No more than you are LL. With your mean spirited nature, I'd not want you to mention your association with the labs if I were your boss. Pot, kettle, black.

Do you have an opinion on the Artikulat? Anything to share?

So.....what you're saying is that this is a place to talk about......audio?

No more than you are LL.

John,

NO - I'm not here making comparisons between the LLNL design for RRW, and the LANL design
for RRW and saying the the LLNL design is "objectively superior".

You, on the other hand; are, whether you recognize it or not - a representative of NHT.

I don't see how you can draw a parallel here AT ALL. You are here PROMOTING the
products of a company for which you are a dealer. NHT has a stake in the audio business,
you are a representative for NHT; the things you say here that are audio related reflect on NHT.

Why do you think the AVS Forum policy for people "in the business" is that they identify
themselves as such.

I have no stake or "vested interest" in audio, neither NHT, nor Wilson, nor the defunct Apogee.

LLNL isn't in the audio business; so I'm clearly not a representative of LLNL with respect to
my opinions on audio. If we were discussing national security policy, homeland defense,
or any other of the plethora of arenas LLNL plays in - then you would have a case that I am
here as a representative. But that's NOT what we are discussing.

We are discussing audio. You are an audio dealer. You represent NHT.

BTW, when it comes to reading graphs, knowing how to interpret them is really important. The spectral decay plots are the ones that are the worst in Stereophile because they are not all equally weighted or proportioned. For instance, the Rockport Antares has a very clean spectral decay here:

http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/rokantfig8.jpg

Looks great, right? BUT, it's only measured ~30dB down from reference, so we don't know what goes on below ~30dB down.

this is the Linn Akurat:

http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/Lakfig8.jpg

Looks worse for sure. But then, it's being measured ~36dB down from reference.
This is the NHT Xd:

http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/Nxttdfig13.jpg

Not nearly as good, right? BUT, they're measuring ~42dB down from the reference!

So, one looks good, but tells us little. Another looks worse. Another seems even worse, but is far more revealing because it shows us so much more, for better or worse.

A lot of Stereophile's measurements have to be looked at very carefully or they can be misleading. In this case, the deeper you go, the more bad stuff you will see. How far below the music it is has a lot to do with whether it is audible. How far you measure out in degrees has a lot to do with how good the dispersion looks. Where you measure on a speaker cabinet will have a *huge* say in what the cabinet resonance is like.

We are discussing audio. You are an audio dealer. You represent NHT.

What's your actual complaint? That I bring up Xd as an option if I think it's appropriate? I have brought up other brands or products I don't represent to people when I think it fits the bill. Why didn't you complain and cause a scene then? Or is that you think I'm a bad person and therefore you need to attack me personally every chance you get? Or that you're the big watchdog that guards society against guys like me? Or are you just obsessed? Which is it?

I mean, my god, you just can't help yourself. As I said earlier, I think Xd is objectively fantastic BUT that this only matters if you actually like the sound. You don't seem to like the sound, yet you can't stop talking about it. You're like one of those people that creates a huge scene at a public meeting or speech and then tries to act like it's everyone else who is the problem.

But, as far as I'm concerned, the more you attack the product, the easier it is to demonstrate what it does. Besides, who gets this worked up about a product that *isn't* groundbreaking? It's like you're actually worried that it threatens high-end. If you weren't, you wouldn't care, now would you, Mr Virtuous?

Bottom line, I think "high-end" has veered WAY off course and is lost in the boonies. I bring up products where you know what you're getting rather than voodoo or junk science. I think this industry needs to get a lot more sensible and less full of crap. You, I guess, disagree, but I hardly see the need to fight about it. I mean, what's your peace chant - "John 'lied', someone bought something and is happy with it!"?!? Doesn't rhyme very well. And I'm pretty sure no one died.

Hey, Roman, did I make you buy Xd? Or did you go listen to it and like it?

I think there are a good half dozen people who bought Xd from other NHT dealers just because I said "check it out". Not because I forced them or deceived them. Haven't heard of free will?

PS, I'm going to watch some big sporting even everyone keeps talking about. See you tomorrow, same AVS time, same AVS channel :D

What's your actual complaint?
John,

My complaint is your tirade that the Xd is "objectively superior".

If all you said was that the NHT Xd is another option - that would be fine by me.

But that's NOT what you do. You BADGER and BERATE people!!

Their speakers are colored and they like colored sound; whereas the
more enlightened Xd listener is listening to some concept of purity.

You make the absurd claim that the Xd is "objectively superior".

When people say it's a matter of opinion - like liking chocolate or vanilla ; you make
the claim that somehow the Xd is objectively superior by your concept of what science it.

THAT'S what I object to.

Now you want to play innocent; that you are just offering "another appropriate option"...

BULLS**T!!!

Besides, I never said that you can solve all of the problems simultaneously. At least not at the moment. But digital solves a whole lot of them, now doesn't it?

Solves some; creates others - see below.


Allow me to call you out and have John Atkinson himself correct you:

What about that paragraph and associated graphs do you not comprehend. It backs up what I've said about Xd and digital crossovers all along and ironically, almost to the words I've used. "Largely cancel" is what I do believe I've said.

You can qualify it with "largely cancel" - but it doesn't completely cancel - and it can't "largely
cancel" except for certain points in space. The argument I used with Kim Ryrie, which he
conceeds that I'm correct on is - take a point in space where they "largely cancel". Now move
on a sphere centered on one driver to another point in space. You are still the same distance
from the driver that is the center of the sphere. Hence its phase is unaltered with respect to the
original point. However, you are now at a different distance from the other driver. Hence the
phase of the other driver's sound has shifted. If it "largely cancelled" at the original point - then
it doesn't "largely cancel" anymore since the phase has shifted. It's misleading to say it even
"largely cancels" if that is true only for certain points.

As Keith Howard points out; hearing the "pre-ringing" is particularly objectionable, because
our hearing is sensitive to the fact that it is non-physical. We should not be hearing the "echo"
of the note before we hear the note; regarless of whether it is attentuated by partial cancellation.

From Keith Howard's article in Stereophile, "Ringing False...":


"In most cases, as here, the filtering will be applied digitally within an oversampling converter
and will be linear-phase. This removes the possibility of audible phase distortion but results in a
symmetrical impulse response having a pre-response before the main peak. Such acausal
(cause before effect) behavior is rare in nature and stands accused of imprinting digital audio
with a characteristic, unnatural sound quality.


The correction of the audible phase distortion results in the symmetrical impulse response,
and hence begets acausal "pre-ringing". This is analogous to the Heisenberg Uncertainty
Principle in physics. As Heisenberg stated, "We now know that we will never know".

You can't say that digital will solve all the problems in the future - the things you must do to
solve some problems, by necessity, create others.


I'm talking about acoustic guitar players, Dr know it all. I'm also a drummer, so I understand how cymbals produce sound. What I don't recognize is your ability to know the difference between a good reproduction and not.

Some old "band humor":

Question: When at a gig; what does it mean if your drummer is drooling out of both sides of his mouth?

Answer: It means the stage is level. :)

Colts won......

My complaint is your tirade that the Xd is "objectively superior".

What about that is incorrect?!? In virtually every way you can measure a speaker, the Xd *is* objectively better. Subjectively? Make your own choice, I'm not your mother.

If all you said was that the NHT Xd is another option - that would be fine by me.

I think that's what I said before being insulted and attacked.

But that's NOT what you do. You BADGER and BERATE people!!

No, I just berate you because you're an egotistical jerkoff! Or, if someone insults me or is obnoxious, sure, I'll stoop down, I want to speak their language so they get it.

Their speakers are colored and they like colored sound; whereas the
more enlightened Xd listener is listening to some concept of purity.

I sometimes like colored sound. What's your point? I like tubes some of the time. That is colored. I like old PSB Stratus Golds on a lot of music. That doesn't make it "better". I like brunettes. Does that make them objectively superior? I like the looks of an Audi TT. Does that make it objectively superior? No. Is $1500 objectively superior to $1000? Yes.

You make the absurd claim that the Xd is "objectively superior".

Yes, but I have backup. Overall, it is. Even the mighty Rockport Antares gets dusted in most every test by the Xd. Am I supposed to act like it isn't true? Should the Colts act like they didn't "win" to be politically correct? No. Should a Bears fan abandon ship? No. Should a Colts fan pretend they lost? No. Should a Bears fan pretend they won? No.

When people say it's a matter of opinion - like liking chocolate or vanilla ; you make
the claim that somehow the Xd is objectively superior by your concept of what science it. THAT'S what I object to.

Objection noted. But it's not going to change a thing. When a speaker company takes it to the next level, then I'll recognize that feat.

Now you want to play innocent; that you are just offering "another appropriate option"... BULLS**T!!!

I'm not "innocent". I take responsibility for my beliefs and my commentary. I'll back it up and stand by it. And I don't need to be insulting or arrogant to do it, just factual.

Solves some; creates others - see below.

Solves far more than it creates.

You can qualify it with "largely cancel" - but it doesn't completely cancel - and it can't "largely
cancel" except for certain points in space.

Ah, but you said I was full of crap when I said "largely cancel", that it didn't cancel at all. Look at a Maxx or X2. They are somewhat, kinda time aligned. Do you think that holds the moment you move your head 6" above the horizontal? No, not at all. Do you think there is audible FR issues? Of course there is. Do you think it gets worse off axis? You betcha. Why don't you mount a campaign against Wilson if vertical axis problems are so important to you?

Listen to Xd from above the speaker. Then listen to an X2 from above. Which sounds better? Xd. Period.

It's misleading to say it even
"largely cancels" if that is true only for certain points.

It's misleading for Wilson to say a speaker is "time aligned" as it's only in one axis and not even really there. Where's your indignation?

As Keith Howard points out; hearing the "pre-ringing" is particularly objectionable, because
our hearing is sensitive to the fact that it is non-physical. We should not be hearing the "echo"
of the note before we hear the note; regarless of whether it is attentuated by partial cancellation.

I see. But it's okay to hear the speaker resonate and ring long after the note has stopped? Very selective in your indignation, I see.


"In most cases, as here, the filtering will be applied digitally within an oversampling converter
and will be linear-phase. This removes the possibility of audible phase distortion but results in a
symmetrical impulse response having a pre-response before the main peak. Such acausal
(cause before effect) behavior is rare in nature and stands accused of imprinting digital audio
with a characteristic, unnatural sound quality.


Yes, and it's also unnatural for an instrument to have the finicky time/phase/comb-filtering response of a speaker. But that doesn't bother you as "unnatural". Very selective, again.

You can't say that digital will solve all the problems in the future - the things you must do to
solve some problems, by necessity, create others.

All? No. Most? Certainly. We're making enormous advances all the time in this field. Speakers are massively distorted compared to electronics, but digital is our only hope of leveling the playing field. No other technology offers such promise or even reality. Grab hold of your wubby and suck on your pacifier and try not to cry.

Question: When at a gig; what does it mean if you're not sitting around doing nothing?

Answer: The guitar player showed up this time. :p

Yeah, we'll you're so *not* Chinese, "Andrew"!...

Say what? What has me being Chinese got anything to do with this?!?! Are you another !@#$%^& bigot? I'm a Canadian born Chinese living in Hong Kong, what has that got to do with anything? Just because I have been a lurker here longer than you doesn't mean I am pretending to be someone else. Are you asking me to prove I am who I say I am?!! What nerve!!

No, I do believe I said this - "The measurements indicate it's substantially more accurate, lower in distortion and with better dispersion than most any high-end speaker in existence. "

You're eating your words, and trying to cover it up. Lets re-trace our steps shall we.

You said...
I think Xd is just about the 8th wonder of the world...

To which I said...
You are kidding right? The Xd may be a technology departure from the mainstream, but its hardly earth shattering to listen to...

To which you said...
What you mean to say is that you would rather pay a lot more for a more colored speaker and that is fine.

In otherwords, if I didn't think Xds were the best speakers I have ever heard, that implied I liked coloured speakers.

I replied with....
Exactly. Your "most any" is my "some". Let me repeat "I would rather pay alot more for a better speaker".

To which you replied...
Show me the measurements of this "better" speaker. If you're saying "I would rather pay more for a speaker I prefer" that is one thing, if you're saying "I would rather pay more for a *better* speaker", show me objective data that supports "better".

In otherwords, you implied that the Xds are the best speakers in this universe, objectively, bar none. And now you're eating your words with " I said most any" blah blah blah... Why don't you just admit you're eating your words.


So far it looks like:

Cabinet resonance - winner Antares
Accuracy - winner Xd
Horizontal dispersion - winner Xd
Vertical dispersion - winner Xd


This is completely disingenuous.

There is insufficient data to "objectively" say the Rockports don't better the Xds in dispersion. The scale and resolution of the graphs don't match, but you're just guessing/hoping that the Rockports don't have better measurements. With regards to "accuracy", I assume you mean flat frequency response. Once again, looking at the Xd's FR and the Rockport's FR, its impossible to objectively claim one is better than the other.

So, insteading of any real objective comments about the Xds, you are in fact conjecturing subjecively that Xds are better!

What a load of crap dude! The jig is up! :rolleyes: Case-closed.

Say what? What has me being Chinese got anything to do with this?!?! Are you another !@#$%^& bigot? I'm a Canadian born Chinese living in Hong Kong, what has that got to do with anything? Just because I have been a lurker here longer than you doesn't mean I am pretending to be someone else. Are you asking me to prove I am who I say I am?!! What nerve!!

Yeah, I kind of am! Let's see a picture with "your" $41,000/pr speakers. Bigot? Heck no. I just know and have known a lot of Chinese folks and they're always so incredibly nice, respectful, kind, so it is a little difficult for me to accept that you're Chinese. That is clue one. Clue two is that all you seem to care about is attacking Xd at the moment. IOW, "AndrewChen" seems like a convenient alter ego that gets whipped out whenever the other ones get burned up or blocked. Just going on your behavior, nothing else. I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem that way. You sound a whole lot like other people with whom I've had run-ins and like to call Xd "fugly".

In otherwords, if I didn't think Xds were the best speakers I have ever heard, that implied I liked coloured speakers.

Well, not "the best", but sure, more or less that. Many people like more colored speakers. They want the speaker to create a particular sound for them that is repeatable, persistent and enjoyable. Others are willing to live with transparency, even when it isn't as enjoyable. Your comments indicate that you're willing to spend 7 times as much to get speakers that sound better to you. That's cool, but there is the argument that you'll also take steps backwards in other areas. But maybe they'll be prettier, at least and not "fugly" as you like to call Xd.

In otherwords, you implied that the Xds are the best speakers in this universe, objectively, bar none. And now you're eating your words with " I said most any" blah blah blah... Why don't you just admit you're eating your words.

No, I said and have always said that it is nearly impossible to find an analog speaker that is objectively equal to or better than Xd in every way. Find one you prefer? Sure. But at what cost?

There is insufficient data to "objectively" say the Rockports don't better the Xds in dispersion. The scale and resolution of the graphs don't match, but you're just guessing/hoping that the Rockports don't have better measurements.

Technically? That's true. However, based on the design, one would naturally expect narrowing dispersion in the upper midrange. The fact that Stereophile cut it off where it did is the second clue.

With regards to "accuracy", I assume you mean flat frequency response. Once again, looking at the Xd's FR and the Rockport's FR, its impossible to objectively claim one is better than the other.

I didn't say Xd was better by a lot. But it is better by a little. It certainly achieves a tighter window. FR, if the deviations are minor, don't have as much of an effect as other things, such as distortion, cone resonances, dispersion.

So, insteading of any real objective comments about the Xds, you are in fact conjecturing subjecively that Xds are better!

It's not a big stretch if you understand speaker design and how different cone materials/sizes affect these things.

Look, if you don't think Xds sound good to you, that's fine. If you can actually afford $41K for speakers, even better. But to dismiss them as though *other* people won't find them to be subjectively fantastic is rather disingenuous. That's why I said that this objective stuff only matters if you actually subjectively like the sound. It's going to get much more interesting as other companies launch digital speakers.

Ah, but you said I was full of crap when I said "largely cancel", that it didn't cancel at all. Look at a Maxx or X2. ... Why don't you mount a campaign against Wilson if vertical axis problems are so important to you?
John,

Because the Wilsons don't "pre-ring". The Wilson's might / might not be time-aligned but they
aren't ACAUSAL!! They don't produce an "echo" before the main sound.

Whe you feed a Wilson an impulse - it's SILENT before the impulse - it doesn't "pre-ring"

As Keith Howard states in the Stereophile article; "pre-ringing" is more objectionable to the
human hearing because it is non-physical. In the natural world, we don't hear effect before
cause.

The Wilsons respect cause and effect. The Xd DOESN'T!!!

Because the DEQX processors use delay circuits and mix together sounds from different times
in order to smooth the frequency response; they "crap-up" the temporal response.

It's this distortion of the temporal characteristics, what Keith Howard calls "energy smearing"
that is the tip-off that the sound from the Xd is a reproduction. When I heard the Xd, something
immediately said to me "reproduction". However, the Wilsons being fed the same source
material in the same room sounded convincingly "real". Isn't THAT what we ultimately want
a speaker system to do?

The Xd may be listenable for some; but it can't in any way, shape or matter lay claim to the
title of "objectively superior". It doesn't play in the same arena as the Wilsons, Rockports,...

If you value the microdynamics, and timbres of an instrument; the finer aspects of sound
reproduction - the Xd "messes" this up.

The Xd is essentially a "one-trick pony".

romanesq,

I agree with unbridled free speech; IF you are representing yourself.

However, John is shilling for NHT. He's telling non-NHT owners that their speakers are colored;
while the NHT Xd is "objectively superior". He thinks by badgering people with this clap-trap;
that somehow he is helping NHT. I believe the opposite is true; he's making NHT look bad; it makes
them look like they have to resort to untruthful pressure tactics in order to sell their products.

Thereforre, since NHT's name is being cited here; NHT has a say in how their representative
promotes their products and uses their name. John doesn't own the NHT name; and if he brings
disrepute on that name by his antics; then NHT has the right to have something to say about it.

It's not an abridgement of free speech for NHT to control their representative.

Greg,

I certainly appreciate your perspective(s) particularly in regard to the fact that numbers are not the end all in the discussion of audio reproduction. Anyone who has heard quality tube amps/preamps can certainly admit they sound good although they have higher distortion than their solid state counterparts.

My sense is that that point has been discussed several times on various threads and that particular point doesn't seem debatable. I also think that Xd with the research done among the three companies in launching the product is a significant advance in the direction of audio as well. Not altogether clear on the acausality issue but you may have indicated an area for improvement. Having said that, I don't think Xd is merely a one trick pony.

As I've at least had a chance to hear and/or own some of the products we're debating it's still a personal view of course on what each individual feels works best for them. Any discussion on the various technologies and their respective limitations (and I've already stated my concern on 44K) is fine by me.

As long as it isn't personalized, I like reading about the various viewpoints on the equipment, even the technical aspects I'm not altogether clear about. In the end, I think the numbers are not the only issue, as your ears are the final arbiter.

What's disappointing in audio is how so much remains the same. Tubes have made a big comeback due to the recognized limits in solid state and speakers have lagged with their conventional designs as well. Xd is definitely ground breaking in many regards, distortion being an important one.

When you see the advances in video, projectors as an example with corresponding costs going down, it makes you wonder why audio can't move things along.

That's my two cents.

Because the Wilsons don't "pre-ring". The Wilson's might / might not be time-aligned but they
aren't ACAUSAL!! They don't produce an "echo" before the main sound.

An "echo" isn't acausal. What we also don't know is how audible it is subjectively. It obviously isn't dramatic because it only seems to be "heard" by people who are aware of it. If I mislead you and told you I replaced your high-end cables with 24 gauge cables, I bet you'd "hear" the sound collapse too. John Dunlavy used to do that to "golden-eared audiophiles" and embarrass the hell out of them.

Whe you feed a Wilson an impulse - it's SILENT before the impulse - it doesn't "pre-ring"

Just after? Ringing after is good, but before is bad? I fail to see much of a difference in the context of music. AND, it has lots of vertical domain problems, far more than the Xd. As I said, you can easily judge the relative "damage" by this pre-ringing by listening to Xd from above where there would be almost no cancellation of the phenomenon. Then listen to *any* other speaker from the same point. Xd still sounds fantastic from above, pre-ringing and all. I know no other forward firing speaker that can pull this off like Xd. That is called good engineering.

As Keith Howard states in the Stereophile article; "pre-ringing" is more objectionable to the
human hearing because it is non-physical. In the natural world, we don't hear effect before
cause.

Ah, so if Keith Howard (?) just states it, it's fact? Has anyone done any research into it? Has anyone actually tested the relative damage done by an analog crossover versus a digital one? All I know is that every time I've removed a stock crossover and replaced it with DEQX, the performance upgrade, "ringing" and all, is dramatic. I have more experience with this than you do, that's why all this digital paranoia doesn't affect me.

The Wilsons respect cause and effect. The Xd DOESN'T!!!

Yeah, well show me a Wilson that respects accuracy. Or dispersion. Or time/phase. Or the negative effects of porting.

Because the DEQX processors use delay circuits and mix together sounds from different times
in order to smooth the frequency response; they "crap-up" the temporal response.

That's hilarious. Analog crossovers don't "crap-up" temporal response?!? Gimme a break!!! They're almost always dramatically worse than a digital crossover with respect to time/phase!

If you value the microdynamics, and timbres of an instrument; the finer aspects of sound
reproduction - the Xd "messes" this up.

I beg to differ. Meridians are the first speaker that showed me what "microdynamics" are. They were "quieter" and reached far deeper into the music that other high-end speakers. Xds are so "quiet" that you can hear all the things going on in your room *even* at very high volumes. That's because they start and stop faster between notes while other speakers mask room noises.

The Xd is essentially a "one-trick pony".

NO! It's exactly the opposite! That's the point. Most high-end speakers can only do one or two things well! Some, like Thiel do time/phase, but are fatiguing. Others like Wilson are low distortion (aka detailed), but not accurate. Others are tonally accurate. Still others have mini-monitor imaging. Others have a big, spacious sound or a wide sweetspot. Others can do deep bass and dynamics.

Xd does *all* of that! Microdynamics, macrodynamics, deep bass, wide sweetspot, pinpoint imaging, big soundstage, accuracy, clarity ALL from one speaker! Is it perfect? Heck no. But is, as Stereophile said "a harbinger of things to come".

I can't wait to see you "whine and complain" when Wilson goes digital! :D

An "echo" isn't acausal.
John,

An echo is acausal if it PRECEDES the sound that is causing it. Additionally, look at the
pre-ringing in Keith Howard's article - the pre-ring doesn't "decay" like the after ring. The
pre-ring is symmetric - it builds up.


Just after? Ringing after is good, but before is bad? I fail to see much of a difference in the context of music.

YOU BET!!! Ideally, it shouldn't ring at all. The ringing that occurs after decays - and one
can pass it off as "reverberation". However, the pre-ring starts BEFORE the main sound -
that's GOT TO BE BAD - and it builds-up instead of decaying. That's the tip off that you are
listening to something artificial.

If it "screws-up" the timing of the impulse - it has to screw-up the music. Real instruments
don't "pre-ring". So when the Xd does it - it's a dead give-away that destroys the "magic".


Ah, so if Keith Howard (?) just states it, it's fact? Has anyone done any research into it?


I'm not taking Keith Howard's say so - I know the math and know the whys and wherefores
of what causes acausal pre-ringing. I cite Keith Howard for YOUR benefit.


I can't wait to see you "whine and complain" when Wilson goes digital!

I'm NOT against all digital!! In fact, I use a digital device in my own Apogee system.

My pre-amp is a TacT RCS 2.2XP - with digital filters.

However, TacT allows you to tune the filters yourself - which I have done - and to graphically
display the impulse behavior. My system doesn't pre-ring. That's because I've set the specs
and crossovers properly.

I can make the system sound as BAD as Xds and pre-ring if I set up STEEP CROSSOVERS!!!

I believe when Dave Wilson goes digital, he'll do it with the same philosophy that Leo Spiegel,
the chief designer at Apogee approached the crossover:

http://www.apogeespeakers.com/leo_spiegel_interview.htm


The blending of the woofer into the midrange/treble ribbon is very gentle. Every time we try a very
sharp cutoff, you can bear the sound of the two units as two quite separate entities. It has been
the same with everything we have worked with. You can always say 'here's the woofer' and
'here's the mid/treble tweeter'. But gentle crossover slopes demand good overlap in the
frequency response, or the technique doesn't work, the units must be well behaved if such slopes
are to work successfully".


Wilson already has well-behaved drive units - they have to be in order to use the analog
crossovers. When Wilson goes digital, the digital filters will just "fine-tune" the already well
behaved drivers. That's also why the TacT digital filters work so well for me too. The analog
crossoer is fairly simple - because the drivers are so well behaved. So when I replaced the
analog crossovers with digital - I made them gentle.

NHT took what are basically "mediocre" drivers and "tamed" them with some heavy-handed
digital crossovers. That philosophy only works to a point - it doesn't get you all the way to
ultimate realism.

I'm not against the technology - I'm against the particular application to the Xd.

I look forward to when Dave Wilson uses digital, because I'm sure he'll use that tool correctly;
and not in a "heavy-handed" manner. Dave Wilson appreciates subtle details - that's why his
speakers sing like angels.

An echo is acausal if it PRECEDES the sound that is causing it.

Hahahaha! You kill me. Acausal means "without cause"!!! How can a sound "cause" something that is "acausal"?!?

Additionally, look at the
pre-ringing in Keith Howard's article - the pre-ring doesn't "decay" like the after ring. The
pre-ring is symmetric - it builds up.

How does this translate into subjectively bad?

YOU BET!!! Ideally, it shouldn't ring at all. The ringing that occurs after decays - and one
can pass it off as "reverberation". However, the pre-ring starts BEFORE the main sound -
that's GOT TO BE BAD - and it builds-up instead of decaying. That's the tip off that you are
listening to something artificial.

So, higher cone resonances, motor distortion, poor dispersion, etc don't tip you off? IOW, a pound of analog distortion is okay, but an ounce of digital distortion is objectionable? Pretty selective!

If it "screws-up" the timing of the impulse - it has to screw-up the music. Real instruments
don't "pre-ring". So when the Xd does it - it's a dead give-away that destroys the "magic".

Yes, but you're capable of ignoring all the artifacts in a typical high-end speaker. I'm not. It drives me crazy, especially when it costs $10s of thousands to get that much distortion.

I'm not taking Keith Howard's say so - I know the math and know the whys and wherefores
of what causes acausal pre-ringing. I cite Keith Howard for YOUR benefit.

Neither trumps my real world experience. I play with this stuff.

However, TacT allows you to tune the filters yourself - which I have done - and to graphically
display the impulse behavior. My system doesn't pre-ring. That's because I've set the specs
and crossovers properly.

I thought all digital crossovers ring?

I can make the system sound as BAD as Xds and pre-ring if I set up STEEP CROSSOVERS!!!

Hah! You wish :D


You can always say 'here's the woofer' and
'here's the mid/treble tweeter'.


Yes, but that isn't so with Xd. They behave as a nearly ideal point source. NHT can choose *any* slope they want, but 110dB/octave obviously was the best balance where the effects of ringing started to equalize with the beneficial aspects of the steep crossovers. Maybe they can have a shallow slope model *just* for you so you'll stop complaining and whining.

Wilson already has well-behaved drive units - they have to be in order to use the analog
crossovers. When Wilson goes digital, the digital filters will just "fine-tune" the already well
behaved drivers. That's also why the TacT digital filters work so well for me too. The analog
crossoer is fairly simple - because the drivers are so well behaved.

Ribbons? Well behaved? Uh-huh!

NHT took what are basically "mediocre" drivers and "tamed" them with some heavy-handed
digital crossovers. That philosophy only works to a point - it doesn't get you all the way to
ultimate realism.

I'm sorry, did you just call the SEAS Excel "mediocre"?!? WTF? I guarantee they're *far* better behaved between 100Hz and 3000Hz where they're used than what Wilson uses.

I look forward to when Dave Wilson uses digital, because I'm sure he'll use that tool correctly.

Ah, because an ex-pharmaceutical sales person would obviously understand digital better than actual electronic engineers at NHT and DEQX :rolleyes:

BTW, Greg, I could argue that the NHT Three and Four speakers are technically superior to the Maxx 2 in most ways (check the measurements - more accurate, better dispersion) and they aren't as good as Xd and they don't "pre-ring". Ergo......... :)

Hahahaha! You kill me. Acausal means "without cause"!!! How can a sound "cause" something that is "acausal"?!?
John,

You are demonstrating your limited knowledge again. "Acausal" ALSO means "effect before cause".
See Keith Howard's Stereophile article "Ringing False...":

http://stereophile.com/reference/106ringing/index1.html

Just before the Fig 1 - which shows what "pre-ringing" looks like - is quote:

Such acausal (cause before effect) behavior is rare in nature and stands accused of imprinting digital audio with a characteristic, unnatural sound quality.


Actually the statement above is a misprint. Cause before effect is generally the rule in nature.
What Keith Howard should have said was acausal means "effect before cause".


I thought all digital crossovers ring?


NO - go back to our very first discussions!!! High-order, high-slope crossovers tend to ring!!!!

In the thread entitled "Max 2 - the best is yet to be" in my post #275; I explained that it was
the high order, high slope crossovers that tend to ring. I gave a link to:

http://www.freqdev.com/guide/fullguide.html

and stated:


Look under the heading of "Output Signal Errors". As they state, "A general rule for settling time
is that the more the filter approaches a "brick-wall" approximation, the longer it will take to settle.
Therefore, an eight-pole filter will take longer to settle than a four-pole filter."

As they state, the settling time is actually a property of the mathematics of the transfer function
that the digital or analog filter is implementing. The 8 pole filter is a higher order filter than the
4 pole filter. The settling time increases as the filter approaches looking like a "brick wall".
Those 300 dB filters that you are so enamoured with - look like "brick walls".




Ribbons? Well behaved? Uh-huh!


With talented designers like Leo Spiegel - ribbons can be made to sing.

NHT might not be up to the challenge; but Leo Spiegel and the old Apogee Acoustics sure were.

Greg,

So you think if NHT provides some different crossovers along the lines you suggest and change the SEAS drivers, the product would be dramatically improved?

If they changed the crossover, they could do it in a downloadable filter but if they change the drivers, I would guess they will do a three or four driver unit.

I see the two love birds have invited a 3rd party into their bedroom.

John, I didn't know you were a "menage-a-trois" kind of guy. Now everything changes; you need new clothes, thick shaggy carpets and new friends... ;)

You are demonstrating your limited knowledge again. "Acausal" ALSO means "effect before cause".

Says who? You're saying that the pre-ringing is bad because it's unrelated to the music, but it is and, apparently, pretty easily masked, unlike many other issues.

NO - go back to our very first discussions!!! High-order, high-slope crossovers tend to ring!!!!

As I understand it, all exhibit ringing to a certain extent. In any case, reading through the subjective part of the Stereophile article, it shows that these filter problems are barely audible if at all. They certainly sound like they were struggling to hear any bad effects and these are guys that think they can hear when a fly lands on their speaker cables!!!

With talented designers like Leo Spiegel - ribbons can be made to sing.

Didn't say they couldn't. Apogees are subjectively very good speakers, warts and all. Ribbons are hardly free from issues, however.

I see the two love birds have invited a 3rd party into their bedroom.

John, I didn't know you were a "menage-a-trois" kind of guy. Now everything changes; you need new clothes, thick shaggy carpets and new friends... ;)

I'd have to dress different. I'd have to act different. I'd have to grow a moustache and get all kinds of robes and lotions and I'd need a new bedspread and new curtains I'd have to get thick carpeting and weirdo lighting. I'd have to get new friends. I'd have to get orgy friends. ... Naw, I'm not ready for it.

:d

So you think if NHT provides some different crossovers along the lines you suggest and change the SEAS drivers, the product would be dramatically improved?
romanesq,

Yes - they can always reprogram the crossovers. As I recall John Atkinson did a "Follow-Up"
report to the NHT Xd review; and NHT e-mailed him some alternate crossovers and filter
parameters to fix some of the deficiencies noted in the original review.

As I understand it, all exhibit ringing to a certain extent.
John,

Then you understand WRONG. Look at Figure 3, Case 3 - the "Minimum Phase Filter"

http://stereophile.com/reference/106ringing/index1.html

You will see that it DOESN'T pre-ring. However, Keith Howard explains:

By changing from a linear-phase to a minimum-phase filter, for instance, all pre-responses are
removed, but now the filter will introduce potentially audible phase distortion.


However, as Keith Howard explains; there's a "Catch-22"; namely the phase distortion.

The "worst" example is Case 4 following - it has a "pre-ring" and no after ring.
Case 2, the interpolated filter has only a very small touch of pre-ring.

Whether the filter is digital or analog is immaterial. It's not a question of digital filters behave
one way and analog filters behave another. The equivalent implementation, be it analog or
digital - will behave the same way.

What digital does is make it easier to implement a certain filter - particularily very high order
filters are difficult to make in the analog realm - by merely a change of some of the parameters
in the digital realm. As Keith Howard explains in one of the sidebars, all he needs to do to
implement the 7 filters is to calculate / format different sets of coefficients.

Fig. 3 also demonstrates the "dual" nature of the problem. Keith Howard constructed 3 cases,
numbers 5-7, that are what he calls "all-pass" filters. Take a look at the frequency response
in the 3rd column. Those "filters" have a ruler flat freqency response. However, if you look
at the temporal response - the degree of ringing and pre-ringing - they are some of the worst
in terms of temporal response. As Keith Howard states:

Filters 5, 6, and 7 are all-pass equivalents of Filters 2, 3, and 4—ie, they have the same phase
response but a flat frequency response—and in energy-smear terms their impulse responses
look particularly nasty.


The take away point is that in filters like this - the designers don't have complete freedom.
There are effects that are coupled together. If you want a flat frequency response like in
Filters 5, 6, and 7; then you end up with nasty impulse response. If you want a filter that
lacks pre-ringing like Case 3; then you get the frequency response shown for that filter.

Digital filters aren't "magic". As in practically all design the engineer has to make trade-offs.
Improving one characteristic leads to the detriment of some other characteristic by necessity.

Just because your filter is digital, doesn't mean you can get around or cheat the mathematics
of Fourier Transforms. Digital just makes it easier, and sometimes feasible; to implement a
given filter. That's it's main advantage relative to analog. But just because the filter is digital
doesn't mean that you can do anything you want; ex. the "Catch-22" above. For every problem
you solve; there are other problems created. The trick is to get a good compromise. Seldom is
the optimal solution to be found in one limit or the other - not the ruler flat limit; or the completely
causal limit.

If you see a design in one limit or the other, I posit that you have a designer trying to impress
you with a metric - rather than how the system sounds. That's also why some really great
sounding system may not look particularily good in some metric; their designer is trying to
impress with the sound, and not just look good in the reviews spec page.

In any case, reading through the subjective part of the Stereophile article, it shows that these filter problems are barely audible if at all. They certainly sound like they were struggling to hear any bad effects..
John,

Keith Howard's filters weren't as steep as the 100+ dB/octave found in the Xd.
Recall the effect gets worse, as the filter slope steepens.



Didn't say they couldn't. Apogees are subjectively very good speakers, warts and all. Ribbons are hardly free from issues, however.

Yes - ribbons have their problems too. They do some things great, but they have their issues.

There's really NO "objectively superior" speaker - including the NHT Xd. That's how this all
got started.

from the article:

First, both Kal and I found differences very hard to identify, if at all. Kal reported that, after his first 40-minute listening session, his "brain was numb." Mine too. In fact, it took three sessions before I could get a handle on at least one of the filters. This was Filter 4, which I felt projected sibilants and rosin noise slightly forward in the soundstage compared with the unfiltered original, and tonally sounded a little "wiry." It gratified me to learn that Kal agreed, feeling it "thinner and a little harder than 1, 2, or 3."

Now, imagine that amount of subtlety being the marginal cost of removing problems far more dramatic than the problems caused.

Also note Linkwitz - "The linear phase shift comes at a price. The impulse response rings. The more so, the steeper the filter slopes. Both lowpass and highpass sections of the crossover ring, but when the outputs are combined, as for a crossover, then the two impulse responses add to a non-ringing, delayed pulse."

While you can raise red flags all you want, the reality is that the on-axis problems are almost entirely canceled *and* the subjective performance is immediately fantastic to most people that hear them. The same people that go listen to $20K "high-end" speakers and think "I don't get it, where's the performance?". In reality, the very small amount of pre-ringing is the one step backward that gets you 10 steps forward. It's clearly audible leap forward, you just don't want to like them, and that is fine. You can lead a horse to water.....

As for what I say, I said that the Xd is objectively superior to most high-end speakers. That much is certainly true. That doesn't make it invincible or unsurpassed or subjectively better to everyone. But the only things that seem to outdo it even subjectively and certainly objectively cost a boat load of money by comparison. Or maybe you can show me a product that measures better?

While you can raise red flags all you want, the reality is that the on-axis problems are almost entirely canceled ...

Note to all: Here's the typical example of what I call "weasel-wording":

the reality is that the on-axis problems are almost entirely canceled ...

Yes - you can get cancellation on a line that eminates straight out from the speaker, "on-axis".
I've said this many times that the impulse cancels "on-axis".

The problem is - how many of us are sitting "on-axis"? ZERO!!!

Even if we were sitting on the axis on one speaker, we can't be on the axis of the other.

So John makes a "big deal" out of the acoustic cancellation on a line that NONE of us have
our ears on.

His statement that the effects are "almost entirely cancelled" is falsified by the fact that
John Atkinson's microphones heard it. If the waves "acoustically cancelled" in the air; then
there wouldn't be any pressure wave to register on Atkinson's microphone.

However, Atkinson's microcphone heard it - and if a human had his / her ear where the
microphone was - then the human would have heard it.

No matter how many times John says "it cancels", "it largely cancels", "almost entirely cancels";
the plain fact is Atkinson's microphone heard it; and so will you!!

I know I heard the Xd make a "mess" of the microdynamics and timbres; while the same source
material fed to the Lamm-driven Wilsons standing next to the Xds in the same room realistically
reproduced those microdynamics and timbres with aplomb.

John can hem and haw all he wants; but this is getting, and has been, pointless!!!

I must admit I have failed to convert the "true believer". I just hope others take note.

Note to all: Here's the typical example of what I call "weasel-wording":

the reality is that the on-axis problems are almost entirely canceled ...

"Weasel wording"?!? So, now you're calling John Atkinson a "weasel"? Because he said almost exactly the same thing.

The problem is - how many of us are sitting "on-axis"? ZERO!!!

I sit on axis! Most everyone is going to be within a few degrees of horizontal axis. What the heck are you talking about? Talk about "weasel wording"......:rolleyes:

Even if we were sitting on the axis on one speaker, we can't be on the axis of the other.

Again, what the heck are you talking about? Of course you can. The horizontal axis is about 33" off the ground. Everywhere in the room. If you're on axis with one, by definition, you're on axis with the other. :confused:

So John makes a "big deal" out of the acoustic cancellation on a line that NONE of us have
our ears on.

Wow, are you really this slow?

His statement that the effects are "almost entirely cancelled" is falsified by the fact that
John Atkinson's microphones heard it. If the waves "acoustically cancelled" in the air; then
there wouldn't be any pressure wave to register on Atkinson's microphone.

"Almost entirely cancelled" is equal to "not entirely cancelled" and therefore measureable, but not necessarily audible or objectionable. Here's what John Atkinson said:

"What can also be seen from fig.11 is that each drive-unit's step is preceded by some low-frequency ringing. But because the tweeter's and woofer's acoustic outputs appear to have opposite polarities, this pre-ringing should to a large extent cancel, at least on the tweeter axis. That this does in fact happen is shown by the XdS's overall step response."

Perhaps you prefer his wording? The first two measurable ripples almost exactly cancelled, to the point of barely registering on the graph. The third, biggest ripple, while remaining visible, was a mere fraction of what the non-combined ripples were.

However, Atkinson's microcphone heard it - and if a human had his / her ear where the
microphone was - then the human would have heard it.

Ah, well in that case, let's assume the audibility of *everything* that is measurable. Then you've got *huge* problems with even a big Wilson speaker. You've half a dozen problems in the typical $50K+ speaker that would certainly dwarf the pre-ringing issue. By that standard, the Wilson Maxx 2 and Apogee Divas are so hideously flawed, they should be shot and tossed overboard. Yet you manage to survive their horrendous sonic behaviors. +/-5 or 10dB? Poor horizontal dispersion? Even worse vertical dispersion? Cone resonance? Motor distortion? Spectral decay? It's all measurable and plenty audible (but also somewhat avoidable).

No matter how many times John says "it cancels", "it largely cancels", "almost entirely cancels";
the plain fact is Atkinson's microphone heard it; and so will you!!

Perhaps, but you'll also hear a much great decrease in coloration, distortion, poor integration, poor dispersion, etc, etc, etc that makes you forget all that.

I know I heard the Xd make a "mess" of the microdynamics and timbres; while the same source
material fed to the Lamm-driven Wilsons standing next to the Xds in the same room realistically
reproduced those microdynamics and timbres with aplomb.

Timbre? The Wilson's aren't even *close* to the Xd in quality of timbre. Unless you consider +/-8db to be more faithful than +/- 1.25dB.

John can hem and haw all he wants; but this is getting, and has been, pointless!!!

I'm not hemming and hawing, I'm discussing actual reality, not fantasy or "math".

I must admit I have failed to convert the "true believer". I just hope others take note.

I believe in actual quality and objective performance. Nothing more, nothing less. Excuses walk. You want to cling desperately to old paradigms, that's fine, but most people will listen with an open mind. Not everyone will like, but many, if not most will. Heck, even if a perfect speaker existed, half the population wouldn't like it at all.

If a $40K speaker were worth the money, it would certainly measure equal to or better than Xd. As $ensible Sound said, roughly, "If you buy a 5-figure speaker now, expect to see them used for 1/10 the price in a few years". It's not just Xd that will cause that. There's a whole host of speakers coming with brave new tech.

As is usual with any good medicine, there's always a downside, but the benefits are worth it. If everyone so obsessed with the downsides to everything, a good chunk of us would be dead. The problem with audiophiles is that they refuse to take one step backwards to take 10 steps forward. They inch a long, little by little at a snail's pace, clinging desperately to losing nothing (except for huge sums of cash), but gaining little in the process. I'll glady move the 9 steps forward, rather than the 6" with each new version of a hideously overpriced product.

Note to all: Here's the typical example of what I call "weasel-wording":

Are we supposed to be reading this stuff? :rolleyes:

All I'm here for is to enjoy John's sadistic attempts at making you squeal like a little piggy.

Come to think of it, you two pink doves should get together for an off-Broadway debut of "Deliverance".
You, being a string picker can also provide the Banjo soundtrack. Win-win I say.

Ah! Love... Right on time for Valentine's... :)

PS Deny all you want, we all know it's true. I know you're old, but it's never too late to unhinge that closet.

Now, see, I'm going to have to go poke out my eyeballs and poor rum into the sockets........

Wow John, I had no idea you were a masochist too.
We gotta do something about that... ;)

Now, imagine that amount of subtlety being the marginal cost of removing problems far more dramatic than the problems caused.

John,

As noted above, Keith Howard's filters weren't as steep as the 100+ dB/octave
found in the Xd. The effect worsens as filter slope steepens.

Greg,

Don't you think you are taking the hyperbole a bit too far in stating that Xds are making a "mess" of microdynamics? Obviously even the strengths of Xd in a two drive system is not going to overall beat out a huge speaker with all the investment in the side-by-side you heard, but you make it out that the Xds are totally inadequate. That really can't be the case when you have downloadable filters available now and more no doubt in the future that will only improve an existing product.

In that time, Wilson and other high end 30-40K speaker manufacturers will change the angle of their drivers in a new cabinent with some minor cross over changes and charge an additional 10-12K.

Now who do you really this objectively is making a mess here?

Excuses walk. You want to cling desperately to old paradigms, that's fine, but most people will listen with an open mind.
John,

Remember we had a listening test at OB's house.

We approached the comparisons with open minds. I wasn't the
only one there; we had Michael Grant, Ron Rarty, the_smokester,
and others.

We all discussed this in that earlier thread. Not one person found
the Xd superior to the Wilsons you belittle so much.

I believe Michael Grant's words were the Wilsons truly outclassed the Xds.

We did the experiment - you haven't.

We went by the actual sound - and YOU want to talk about reality.

We had reality; side by side; so just face it - the Xd LOST.

Greg,

Don't you think you are taking the hyperbole a bit too far in stating that Xds are making a "mess" of microdynamics? Obviously even the strengths of Xd in a two drive system is not going to overall beat out a huge speaker with all the investment in the side-by-side you heard, but you make it out that the Xds are totally inadequate.
romanesq,

You should read the critique I did following the listening test.

http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/printthread.php?t=597630&page=2&pp=30

I said that the Xds were very listenable; and a very good value considering
their price.

John had billed them as "giant killers" - that they are head and shoulders
superior to the Lamm-driven Wilsons - which he hadn't even heard.

Microdynamics and the faults I heard in the Xd are really very fine points.

When I heard the Xd - something just said it sounded like a reproduction; and
I listened very, very carefully to what I was hearing to see what I was keying
on that made me feel the sound was a reproduction.

You can certainly do better than the NHT Xd; if you work at it and have the
financial resources. I've done better with Apogee, Krell and TacT; but at
more money. "Smokester" believes you can do better for the $6K price
of the Xd; but you have to do some research and work at it.

Don't get me wrong; they are very fine speakers.

However, they don't hold a candle to OB's Lamm-driven Wilsons. That system
is just something else. Those Wilsons make it hard to believe that Louis Armstrong
and Ella Fitzgerald are not right there in the room with you. They are THAT GOOD!

It's hard to believe what those Wilsons do!! You really have to hear them to
believe it.

The Xds put up a good show; it's just that they fall flat by comparison.

so just face it - the Xd LOST.
You forgot to say "na na na na na".

As noted above, Keith Howard's filters weren't as steep as the 100+ dB/octave
found in the Xd. The effect worsens as filter slope steepens.

Yes, but you consistently side step several issues that the filters improve dramatically.

One, cone resonance is lowered
Two, motor distortion is lowered
Three, horizontal dispersion is greatly enhanced
Four, very nasty comb filtering is *dramatically* reduced

We can leave out FR improvements and room correction as that is unrelated to the crossover itself.

You want to poo-poo this achievement and that's fine, it's the classic "serious audiophile" take on moving the ball forward. Classic, instinctive behavior, the same kind that promulgates the theory that vinyl is superior despite being clearly poor scientifically.

Analog speakers as they exist are a complete mess. They generally sound like crap off axis in both directions and have massive comb filtering, resonances, distortions, decays and even most of the very high-end methods for fixing this don't do a good job.

I'll say it again - Xd is 1 step backward, but 10 steps forward. Net gain, 9 steps. Whether you personally like it or not is immaterial.

We all discussed this in that earlier thread. Not one person found
the Xd superior to the Wilsons you belittle so much.

I never expected you do, you're a biased bunch, I'll say that. BUT, you didn't notice that the NHTs have much broader, more realistic dispersion? Or that they don't comb filter when you move up or down? Did you read the review of Wilsons where they said just how finicky about where you sit? Are real instruments finicky like that? Nope. Xd reproduces sound more like a real instrument produces sound.

We did the experiment - you haven't.

Actually, I have, just against different speakers. They've certainly embarrassed a whole host of speakers side by side, from about $8000/pr up to $22K/pr. Linns, B&Ws, Genesis, Meridians, Focals. Not as "exciting" as some, but far more realistic and natural, something about which many "high-enders" don't think. It's all "dynamics!" and "detail!" and "power!". IOW, many audiophiles want a hyped version of reality, rather than reality itself. And those folks wouldn't like a perfect speaker if it actually existed.

We had reality; side by side; so just face it - the Xd LOST.

Oh, big whoop. You subjectively preferred a $300K system to a $6K system (prior to the filter upgrades and with only one sub). Wow!!! But think of it this way, most people think "okay, this is $300K and this is $6K - therefore, every difference I hear *must* be in favor of the more expensive system". That is *exactly* how most people think. That's how they've been trained to think by the industry, reviewers, dealers, etc. Bottom line, if you didn't hear one or two areas that Xd did better than the Wilsons, you are too biased to know a hot dog from a prime rib. I know where the Wilsons would do better, but I also know where they'd do worse *and* I'd know it when I heard it.

Poor vertical dispersion, poor frequency response, poor driver integration, port noise, poor spectral decay, all seeming hallmarks of a Wilson design. I guess it's fortunate that you can't hear these things. Why do you think there are so many people that hear Wilsons and go "eewwwww". There are people that would take Xd over most any Wilson because they simply can't stand the sound of Wilson speakers.

Want to talk about a mess, go look at the Maxx 2 - http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/805wilson/index4.html and tell me what *good* things you see in the measurements. I can't think of any. Certainly an $800/pr NHT measures dramatically better in the midrange/treble and it doesn't have "pre-ringing" to use as a red herring. But the Wilsons will play louder and deeper for 50 times as much, so it's not all bad. :D

At least the Rockport Antares measures well.

You want to poo-poo this achievement and that's fine, it's the classic "serious audiophile" take on moving the ball forward. Classic, instinctive behavior, the same kind that promulgates the theory that vinyl is superior despite being clearly poor scientifically.

John,

Again you can't say that!!!

Do you remember the early experiments in "quadraphonics" from the '70s?

The rear channels of the quad system were encoded on the vinyl records of the day using a
48 kHz carrier.

Vinyl has the BANDWIDTH to handle a 48 kHz signal.

The sampling frequency of a CD is 44.1 kHz. The Nyquist Theorem says that the bandwidth
is HALF the sampling frequency; or 22.05 kHZ for a CD.

So SCIENTIFICALLY - Vinyl has GREATER BANDWIDTH than CD - by more than a factor of 2.

You keep making statements like this that conclusively PROVE; you don't know what
you're talking about.

I never expected you do, you're a biased bunch, I'll say that. BUT, you didn't notice that the NHTs have much broader, more realistic dispersion?
John,

For my taste, I think they have too much - I don't like vocalists that sound like their
mouths are 3 feet wide.


We did the experiment - you haven't.
Actually, I have, just against different speakers.


NONSENSE again!!! I say we did the experiment and compared the Wilson X-2 to the NHT Xd.
You haven't. Now you say "you have"; but with different speakers!!!

Either you compared Wilson X-2 to NHT Xd, like we did; or you HAVEN'T

Logically, scientifically; there is NO MIDDLE GROUND!!!

But, keep it up - I'm glad for ALL to see that you will make up anything, go through all sorts
of logical contortions - just to promote the NHT Xd or whatever.

Therefore, your credibility is NILL - which is exactly the point I'm trying to demonstrate!!

Thank You so much.

And, again, you're taking *one* aspect of performance out of many and claiming total superiority. It doesn't work like that. CD isn't better because of one thing it does better, it's because of the *many* things it does better. Xd is the same. Being good at one or two things isn't nearly enough. It's a decathlon, not a 100 yard dash or a pole vault.

PS - you'd make a terrible lawyer.

For my taste, I think they have too much - I don't like vocalists that sound like their
mouths are 3 feet wide.

That's fine! What is important about dispersion isn't so much just *how* broad it is, but that it is coherent. Xd's is both broad *and* coherent. If you use a little bit of room treatment, however, the voice will narrow right back down to the size you like. But if you start with poor dispersion, you can't do much about that. With broad dispersion, you can tune it. That being said, wide dispersion speakers prefer wide walls or well damped rooms to work their magic.

NONSENSE again!!! I say we did the experiment and compared the Wilson X-2 to the NHT Xd.
You haven't. Now you say "you have"; but with different speakers!!!

You don't comprehend language very well, do you? I've performed the same type of "experiment" with very expensive speakers. Not *that* expensive, mind you, but it's hard to find X2s around here or I sure would.

But, keep it up - I'm glad for ALL to see that you will make up anything, go through all sorts
of logical contortions - just to promote the NHT Xd or whatever.

It's funny that I have to defend objectively, scientifically superior to a "scientist". I guess you must save 100% of your logic for your work and become moronic as soon as you get on the internet?

Therefore, your credibility is NILL - which is exactly the point I'm trying to demonstrate!! Thank You so much.

I think others can determine whether I have credibility to them or not. That I don't have credibility to someone so incredibly illogical and unscientific is of zero importance to me. You are to scientists what Paul Krugman is to economists (or what the UN now is to meteorologists)

And, again, you're taking *one* aspect of performance out of many and claiming total superiority. It doesn't work like that.
John,

That's EXACTLY the point I'm trying to get YOU to accept!!!

I'm NOT SAYING that vinyl is superior.

I'm saying YOU can't make a statement that one speaker or technology is "objectively superior".

In order, to be "objectively superior"; it has to be superior in ALL aspects.

When I give you "one" aspect - I'm giving you a COUNTEREXAMPLE!!

The single counterexample DISPROVES the ALL - so you can't make an "objectively superior"
statement.

"overall"

Feel better?

I see no such definition in language that dictates that "superior" means superior in every way. Mankind is "superior", but we can't fly like a bird or swim like a dolphin. You claimed that the Wilsons sound "better" yet that, by your definition, would be impossible as I've not heard any decent speaker that sounds better than another decent in *every* conceivable way. In essence, the definition of superior is based in the grounds by which you are making the judgement.

Maybe if you focused on the actual arguments at hand rather than flying off on pedantic little tangents, we'd get somewhere. While you try to argue like a lawyer, you're still bad at it.

You don't comprehend language very well, do you? I've performed the same type of "experiment" with very expensive speakers. Not *that* expensive, mind you, but it's hard to find X2s around here or I sure would.
John,

You're the one that always redefines the parsing. You didn't say the same TYPE - you
said "actually I have" - no qualification that it was just the type.

As usual, YOU have to reparse everything you've said.

I said you haven't done the experiment; and then you said you HAD!!! [ only with diffierent speakers]

So guess what - the tests you did with other speaker MEAN NOTHING!!!

You can't make a statement about the X-2 sound; because you haven't done the experiment!!

Since you haven't done the experiment; you haven't heard the Wilsons, or Andrew's speakers...
you should just take Andrew's advice, and STFU!!

"overall"

Feel better?

I see no such definition in language that dictates that "superior" means superior in every way. Mankind is "superior",
John,

You want to be "objectively superior".

That means no quibling about what aspects of superiority - "objectively superior" - no arguments.

Therefore you have to be superior in ALL aspects - because if you are deficient in some aspect;
someone can claim that is the figure of merit that really counts.

So to be "objectively superior" - you can't have any aspect in which you are deficient.

I'm sure that Livermore Labs IT is very unhappy about the loss of productivity of one of the most brilliant minds in the history of mankind.

Instead of unifying physics, he's wasting his godly neurons feuding with a mere humanling peon.

Quite sad really...

I said you haven't done the experiment; and then you said you HAD!!! [ only with diffierent speakers]

Oh, gawd. How lame. "I tried a McDonald's cheeseburger and it was better than a prime rib" and I say "well, I haven't tried a McDonald's cheeseburger, but I've tried others and haven't found them to be as good as a prime rib". My statement was perfectly self-explanatory! You can take from it what you want, but trying to twist it like you are is really retarded. My point is that high-end isn't safe and your incredible insecurity shows that.

So guess what - the tests you did with other speaker MEAN NOTHING!!!

That means the tests you did also mean nothing. Anecdotally, it does. And, since there are many people who think Wilsons don't sound good at all, it is just as likely, outside of BAAS and its Wilson worship, there are people who would have come to the exact opposite conclusion, especially given the reaction I've had to Xd.

You can't make a statement about the X-2 sound; because you haven't done the experiment!!

I didn't make any statement except that I know that I'd be able to point out the flaws that you wouldn't be able to admit. And that the X2s would have to be at least about 3 times better than the Maxx 2 to not have obvious subjective issues that Xd doesn't have. Wilsons will have major dispersion issues, comb filtering issues, frequency response issues, diffraction issues, even cone resonance issues and porting issues, all measurable, all audible. These are issues the Xd doesn't have in large amount.

Since you haven't done the experiment; you haven't heard the Wilsons, or Andrew's speakers...
you should just take Andrew's advice, and STFU!!

Sorry, I'm a "marketplace of ideas" guy. You can follow me around and argue with me or just ignore me. Don't care which.

So to be "objectively superior" - you can't have any aspect in which you are deficient.

"overall" "on the balance"

I think I generally say "objectively superior in most ways", but if you want to continue on being as pedantic as ever, it's not like anything I say will meet your approval, so swing away.

I'm sure that Livermore Labs IT is very unhappy about the loss of productivity of one of the most brilliant minds in the history of mankind.

Instead of unifying physics, he's wasting his godly neurons feuding with a mere humanling peon.

Quite sad really...

We probably would have had teleporters by now. I think I've also prevented a cure for cancer and god knows what else arguing with others ;)

I'm sure that Livermore Labs IT is very unhappy about the loss of productivity of one of the most brilliant minds in the history of mankind.

Instead of unifying physics, he's wasting his godly neurons feuding with a mere humanling peon.

Quite sad really...
Andrikos,

Actually I multiprocess with my classified side computer.

Right now the code is compiling and loading - so rather than sit and watch it
and twiddle my fingers - I take John apart.

I take John apart.

hahahahahaha! You kill me. You "take [me] apart" like that kid from internet fame wields a plastic light saber.

Oh, gawd. How lame.
John,

If somebody said they auditioned a $6K sub-sat speaker and said it was the biggest piece
of fecal matter on the face of the Earth; and since the NHT Xd is a $6K sub-sat speaker -
then we can conclude that the NHT Xd is the biggest piece of fecal matter on the face of
the Earth - you would be the first to cry "UNFAIR". I would join you - because it is unfair.

That's what you are doing to the Wilsons - hypocrit.


That means the tests you did also mean nothing.


No - it means that those present have INFORMED OPINIONS - since they heard BOTH
speakers side by side. You want to make pronouncements about how you know exactly
how a speaker you've never heard, sounds.


Sorry, I'm a "marketplace of ideas" guy. You can follow me around and argue with me or just ignore me.

Evidently a marketplace with zero quality controls. No thank you, I'll take the latter option.

John,

If somebody said they auditioned a $6K sub-sat speaker and said it was the biggest piece
of fecal matter on the face of the Earth; and since the NHT Xd is a $6K sub-sat speaker -
then we can conclude that the NHT Xd is the biggest piece of fecal matter on the face of
the Earth - you would be the first to cry "UNFAIR". I would join you - because it is unfair.

That's what you are doing to the Wilsons - hypocrit.

No, because most of the speakers to which I have compared Xd actually *measure* better than Wilsons!!!!! And I haven't said that Xds will sound subjectively better to most people than X2s, only that it is very much conceivable that some will actually prefer the sound, despite being 1/20th the price *because* they measure better, don't have the problems of a D'Appolito and have less cabinet bulk to get in the way of the sound.

You want to make pronouncements about how you know exactly
how a speaker you've never heard, sounds.

When did I say that? I said I could point out flaws in an X2 that you wouldn't want to admit exists. I can point out flaws in many speakers, even Xds. It's just harder with Xds :D

Evidently a marketplace with zero quality controls. No thank you, I'll take the latter option.

Please do!!!

Andrikos,

Actually I multiprocess with my classified side computer.

Right now the code is compiling and loading - so rather than sit and watch it
and twiddle my fingers - I take John apart.

Surely there has to be something better to do rather than let John raise your blood pressure to lethal levels.

How about playing chess online or theorizing about strings and 'branes? ;)

hahahahahaha! You kill me. You "take [me] apart" like that kid from internet fame wields a plastic light saber.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPPj6viIBmU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GJOVPjhXMY&mode=related&search=

What I can't figure out is how Greg had such advanced cameras that long ago. Probably filmed in LL when he was an intern ;)

Greg... Do you remember the old Axiom about arguing on the internet being like winning in the special olympics?

Please dude, you are making a scene.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HPPj6viIBmU
QQQ, you are younger than I expected :)

romanesq,
You can certainly do better than the NHT Xd; if you work at it and have the
financial resources. I've done better with Apogee, Krell and TacT; but at
more money. "Smokester" believes you can do better for the $6K price
of the Xd; but you have to do some research and work at it.

Don't get me wrong; they are very fine speakers.

However, they don't hold a candle to OB's Lamm-driven Wilsons. That system
is just something else. Those Wilsons make it hard to believe that Louis Armstrong
and Ella Fitzgerald are not right there in the room with you. They are THAT GOOD!

It's hard to believe what those Wilsons do!! You really have to hear them to
believe it.

The Xds put up a good show; it's just that they fall flat by comparison.

Greg,

Happen to have Ella and Louis in the Sony. I'll fire them up and get back to you.
Now what is the smokester setup that you think can compete with the Xd's value?

The Xds put up a good show; it's just that they fall flat by comparison.

Roman, he really meant "measure flat by comparison" ;)

Well, I had my entertainment for the day. Thanks guys. I'll come an visit your next episode when I get a chance.

Yeah, I kind of am! Let's see a picture with "your" $41,000/pr speakers. Bigot? Heck no. I just know and have known a lot of Chinese folks and they're always so incredibly nice, respectful, kind, so it is a little difficult for me to accept that you're Chinese. That is clue one. Clue two is that all you seem to care about is attacking Xd at the moment. IOW, "AndrewChen" seems like a convenient alter ego that gets whipped out whenever the other ones get burned up or blocked. Just going on your behavior, nothing else. I could be wrong, but it doesn't seem that way. You sound a whole lot like other people with whom I've had run-ins and like to call Xd "fugly".


So let me get this straight, you stereotype (pun intended) people and judge how they should behave based on race.... theres a word for people like you. I should have guessed, no wonder you've had run-ins with alot of people!

If you scroll through the start of this thread, you will see that I wasn't the first to use the word "fugly", but found it very apt and re-used it.

Dude, quit being a paranoid bigot and get over yourself. I'm not an alter ego of your mortal enemy or in any way related to you. I am merely a lurker who made a comment on your perennial topic and got slammed as a coloured-speaker-favourer for it with no valid reason other then your conjecture. To which I believe I have proved my case and made my point.

I just want to say that I have thoroughly read ever word ;) in this thread and in spite of that cannot make up my mind. Would John and Greg please debate some more to help me draw a conclusion?

debate??? :confused: I guess Ali and Frazier engaged in a debate :rolleyes:

?? :confused: I guess Ali and Frazier engaged in a debate :rolleyes:
I wouldn't compare this to one of the greatest fights in history. More like a Super Dave episode or perhaps "professional" wrestling.

I wouldn't compare this to one of the greatest fights in history. More like a Super Dave episode of perhaps "professional" wrestling. :D