What does jim holtz mini statements speakers compare to commercially? - Page 4 - AVS | Home Theater Discussions And Reviews
Baselworld is only a few weeks away. Getting the latest news is easy, Click Here for info on how to join the Watchuseek.com newsletter list. Follow our team for updates featuring event coverage, new product unveilings, watch industry news & more!


Forum Jump: 
Reply
 
Thread Tools
post #91 of 197 Old 04-06-2011, 11:18 AM
Member
 
phenosity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
nice you guys managed to turn a simple comparison thread into an argument OP find someone near you who has the statements and audition them and buy either salk or the other which ever has a free in home audition trial
phenosity is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #92 of 197 Old 04-06-2011, 11:24 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by phenosity View Post

nice you guys managed to turn a simple comparison thread into an argument OP find someone near you who has the statements and audition them and buy either salk or the other which ever has a free in home audition trial

The OP posted in Feb 2010....like he cares what discussions are happening in Apr 2011

btw, speaker comparisons are never simple and this is DIY so tech discussions should get very deep into the details. No fluff or subjectivity needed

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
post #93 of 197 Old 04-06-2011, 11:26 AM
Advanced Member
 
yelnatsch517's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 985
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

The OP posted in Feb 2010....like he cares what discussions are happening in Apr 2011

I think he meant me. I'm the guy who revived this old thread. I did a search and this thread popped up so I decided to just post in this one instead of making a new one.

Decisions decisions. So hard to make them.
yelnatsch517 is offline  
post #94 of 197 Old 04-06-2011, 11:35 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by yelnatsch517 View Post

I think he meant me. I'm the guy who revived this old thread. I did a search and this thread popped up so I decided to just post in this one instead of making a new one.

Decisions decisions. So hard to make them.

ah, you are right. You did ask a question about them. Have you posted your question on HTGuide.com?

IMO, if you like to build something then DIYing statements would be a great choice.

If you just want best bang for your $$$ speakers then honestly Salk designs are damn good for the $$$ too.

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
post #95 of 197 Old 04-06-2011, 11:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DS-21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,903
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 478 Post(s)
Liked: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by yelnatsch517 View Post

So according to you speakers like the Salk Songtowers and Ascend Towers wouldn't sound good at all? I'm just looking for some relativity of what you stated. They would all sound equally bad, or some better than others?

They would all be too flawed for me to ever consider, because of the design choices made. I don't really pay attention below that threshold. I googled both of those speakers, and I'd expect the Statement Minis to have less lower midrange dynamic compression than the Songtowers, because of its volume displacement advantage. You also need to hear something with a short ribbon tweeter to see if you like their distortion signature.

Quote:
Originally Posted by yelnatsch517 View Post

You mentioned the JTR Single 8, Tannoy Definitino DC8i, and Seaton Spark. How do those compare to the JBL 4722 that Notnyt is currently using? My budget is actually roughly $2k/pr and the Seaton Sparks cost roughly the same as the JBL and both are a bit more than the JTR Triple 8. I ask because if I were to purchase them, they'd eventually end up in the main room once it's been cleaned out.

For a larger room, the 8" coaxes don't compare. The JBL's will have much less dynamic compression and much better pattern control. (They can also be EQ'ed to whatever response one wishes.) BUT, in a room of your size, with only 8' space from the speakers to the listener, I think there's a big risk that they'll sound incoherent compared to the smaller coaxes. Big speakers need some distance to work well. Also, think about how huge they are; they would look ungainly in a room the size of yours.

The JTR Triple 8 would be a good middle-ground. Though the JTR's are more expensive than I thought, so depending on form-factor constraints at that price the Tannoy DC12i also pops up as an option and would be my preference.

I'm assuming that you are indifferent between building and buying, as long as the results are what you want. If you would prefer to build, it would be worth looking to see if there's a proven design using the 10-12" B&C or BMS coaxial drivers. I don't know of any offhand.

--
"In many cases there aren’t two sides unless one side is 'reality' and the other is 'nonsense.'" - Phil Plait
Serious Audio Blog 
DS-21 is offline  
post #96 of 197 Old 04-06-2011, 11:46 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

They would all be too flawed for me to ever consider, because of the design choices made. .

Again, you can not post they are flawed just because they are not designed with your priorities in mind. I agree with certain priorities for certain setups but its all 100% choice. To assume everyone should design speakers with your priorities is kind of audiophile elitism that we battle daily in cable discussions, etc.

I still would take a high quality ribbon design over any horn design, JBL, Danley, tannoy product for critical music listening. I think its stupid to have MONSTER horns in a smallish area where we are sitting less then 10 feet.

If you think that sucks so be it. Your house, car, job choice and selection of clothes suck too (Yep trying to prove a point, Im not serious about any of those because I have no idea but that is how subjectively silly and elitest your post about speakers can be )

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
post #97 of 197 Old 04-06-2011, 11:55 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DS-21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,903
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 478 Post(s)
Liked: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

A caveat which has nothing to do with whether such a dipole could exist.

Except that if it could, and it was so obviously superior, it would exist. Given that, either it's not all it's cracked up to be, or it's not feasible with current technology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

Double Blind Listening tests are unecessary when the measurements show it clearly in a way that can be correlated to other listening tests.

I agree with that to a large degree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

This can be seen in the CSD of a given dipole and a given monopole in-room. The dipole will have smooth consistent decay and the monopole will have unbalanced bottom heavy lag.

Can you point to controlled listening tests where a dipole's decay signature is preferred?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

Monopoles store too much energy in rooms. They also excite room modes the most.

Well, there's the issue of whether one wants to avoid exciting room modes (which basically means not making bass) or randomizing excitement of room modes through multiple (monopole, though Geddes calls everything uses both sides of the driver's radiation - i.e. ported/PR/>4th order BP - in some form a 'dipole') subwoofers.

Having heard both and experimented with both personally, I overwhelmingly prefer the latter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

If you want a speaker that will work in an untreated room, it should have a shift from cardioid bass to dipole upper bass with control over directivity, polar and power response over the audible spectrum via speaker design.

I would say that the theoretical ideal is probably cardoid bass all the way through.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

If you want a monopole to work, you need to treat the room at least at bass frequencies above where multiple subs could do anything, without treating it for mid and upper frequencies. It's nearly an impossible task without a custom room.

What frequency range are you talking about? FWIW, I think for most domestic living room sized spaces, multisubs should go up to about 150Hz. Lower as the room gets larger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

The only "heroics" necessary for a dipole to sound good in a room is to have the baffle about 4 feet from the wall. Just like a monopole should be if you want it to sound decent.

Nonsense. A little treatment of the front wall does help a little, but the difference is surprisingly minor.

I would never consider putting speakers 4' into a room any more. It's just not necessary. As for diffraction, I'm found much more response errors caused by crap between the speakers (equipment stands, RPTVs, and so on) than by close-to-wall placement. Speakers designed to be placed into the room will sound boomy when placed against the wall. But that's why we DIY: to design our speaker systems to organically integrate within the constraints of our rooms!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

Far from it, dipoles are the most practical.

Nonsense. A speaker that needs to be in the middle of the damn room is not "practical."

And how the hell do you do three if you also need a TV of some sort in the room? The middle one will block the screen!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

Nor is a giant 15" waveguide atop a 15" woofer in a 200lb box "practical."

I have found that, in terms of integrating a trio of speakers into a room, width isn't that much of a problem if they're also shallow.

As for mass, one can make lightweight cabinets. I had Nathan Funk make mine out of Sonotube and wood. Loaded with 12" Tannoy Dual Concentrics, they weigh maybe 45lbs.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

A caveat which has nothing to do with whether such a dipole could exist.

Except that if it could, and it was so obviously superior, it would exist. Given that, either it's not all it's cracked up to be, or it's not feasible with current technology.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

Double Blind Listening tests are unecessary when the measurements show it clearly in a way that can be correlated to other listening tests.

I agree with that to a large degree.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

This can be seen in the CSD of a given dipole and a given monopole in-room. The dipole will have smooth consistent decay and the monopole will have unbalanced bottom heavy lag.

Can you point to controlled listening tests where a dipole's decay signature is preferred?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

Monopoles store too much energy in rooms. They also excite room modes the most.

Well, there's the issue of whether one wants to avoid exciting room modes (which basically means not making bass) or randomizing excitement of room modes through multiple (monopole, though Geddes calls everything uses both sides of the driver's radiation - i.e. ported/PR/>4th order BP - in some form a 'dipole') subwoofers.

Having heard both and experimented with both personally, I overwhelmingly prefer the latter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

If you want a speaker that will work in an untreated room, it should have a shift from cardioid bass to dipole upper bass with control over directivity, polar and power response over the audible spectrum via speaker design.

I would say that the theoretical ideal is probably cardoid bass all the way through.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

If you want a monopole to work, you need to treat the room at least at bass frequencies above where multiple subs could do anything, without treating it for mid and upper frequencies. It's nearly an impossible task without a custom room.

What frequency range are you talking about? FWIW, I think for most domestic living room sized spaces, multisubs should go up to about 150Hz. Lower as the room gets larger.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

The only "heroics" necessary for a dipole to sound good in a room is to have the baffle about 4 feet from the wall. Just like a monopole should be if you want it to sound decent.

Nonsense. A little treatment of the front wall does help a little, but the difference is surprisingly minor.

I would never consider putting speakers 4' into a room any more. It's just not necessary. As for diffraction, I'm found much more response errors caused by crap between the speakers (equipment stands, RPTVs, and so on) than by close-to-wall placement. Speakers designed to be placed into the room will sound boomy when placed against the wall. But that's why we DIY: to design our speaker systems to organically integrate within the constraints of our rooms!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

Far from it, dipoles are the most practical.

Nonsense. A speaker that needs to be in the middle of the damn room is not "practical."

And how the hell do you do three if you also need a TV of some sort in the room? The middle one will block the screen!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

Go ask Danley if his most recent synergy horn measures or sounds like his 1990s implementation.

Of course not, but that's also entirely out of the scope of the comment to which I was replying, "Your assumptions are based on specific designs, most of which are over a decade old in concept." Concept =/= implementation.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

We're not at a point where everything is tried and verified. Certainly not your position.

My position, if anything, is on more solid theoretical ground than yours. But obviously there's still some compromise in the end. Dipoles ultimately seem more compromised than compromise, though.

--
"In many cases there aren’t two sides unless one side is 'reality' and the other is 'nonsense.'" - Phil Plait
Serious Audio Blog 
DS-21 is offline  
post #98 of 197 Old 04-06-2011, 12:09 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DS-21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,903
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 478 Post(s)
Liked: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

I still would take a high quality ribbon design over any horn design, JBL, Danley, tannoy product for critical music listening. I think its stupid to have MONSTER horns in a smallish area where we are sitting less then 10 feet.

You like the distortions that ribbons impart. (See here.) Fair enough. They sound different, and preference is preference.

As for your second point, we agree completely. See supra.

Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

Your house, car, job choice and selection of clothes suck too (Yep trying to prove a point, Im not serious about any of those because I have no idea but that is how subjectively silly and elitest your post about speakers can be )

I never claimed not to be elitist. But frankly, my elitism is the equivalent of someone wearing a bespoke suit, shirt, and shoes opining that Armani or Prada off-the-peg is too crappy to consider wearing. And that's true. (Mid-level bespoke - except for shoes; I've not seen a decent bespoke cobbler charge under ~1500 USD/pair - generally costs about the same as "designer" crap.) Compare construction, materials quality, and fit of one of those jokers' pieces to proper adult male clothing, and they win at nothing except being more impressive name-wise to ignorant people. (For the record, today the only visible-to-the-outside-world items of clothing I am wearing that were not made for me are an off-the-peg Loro Piana buttondown-collar shirt and a Simonnot Godard pocket square. Suit, belt, and shoes are bespoke.)

--
"In many cases there aren’t two sides unless one side is 'reality' and the other is 'nonsense.'" - Phil Plait
Serious Audio Blog 
DS-21 is offline  
post #99 of 197 Old 04-06-2011, 12:17 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

You like the distortions that ribbons impart. (See here.) Fair enough. They sound different, and preference is preference.

Did I say I used those ribbons. Everyone knows that Zaph "Harpooned" ribbons for his own subjective reasons. Its the only part of Zaph's site that was a joke to me. Please feel free to see distortion measurements of ribbon designs with proper XOs. Distortion on quality ribbons are superior to dome choices. Just look at the RAAL measurements!!

Quote:



I never claimed not to be elitist. But frankly, my elitism is the equivalent of someone wearing a bespoke suit, shirt, and shoes that Armani or Prada off-the-peg is too crappy to consider wearing despite costing similar money. And that's true. Compare construction, materials quality, and fit of one of those jokers' pieces to proper adult male clothing, and they win at nothing except being more impressive name-wise to ignorant people. (For the record, today the only visible-to-the-outside-world items of clothing I am wearing that were not made for me are an off-the-peg Loro Piana buttondown-collar shirt and a Simonnot Godard pocket square. Suit, belt, and shoes are bespoke.)

lmao...didnt care I was trying to make a point about you calling quality speakers deisgns "FLAWED". Its an insult but somehow you do not understand that

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
post #100 of 197 Old 04-06-2011, 12:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Eternal Velocity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

Except that if it could, and it was so obviously superior, it would exist. Given that, either it's not all it's cracked up to be, or it's not feasible with current technology.

I posted the polars on the previous page of a very recent, far from cost no object one, which you did not even look at.

Quote:


Can you point to controlled listening tests where a dipole's decay signature is preferred?

No, because i've never seen em compared like this, nor does a subjective preference for box speakers by people accustomed to box speakers their whole lives reflect the ability to reproduce live sound. What I can say is that the measurements show my position clearly.


Quote:


Well, there's the issue of whether one wants to avoid exciting room modes (which basically means not making bass) or randomizing excitement of room modes through multiple (monopole, though Geddes calls everything uses both sides of the driver's radiation - i.e. ported/PR/>4th order BP - in some form a 'dipole') subwoofers.

I am not here to argue semantics or what geddes says. Dipoles couple to rooms better plain and simple.

Quote:


Having heard both and experimented with both personally, I overwhelmingly prefer the latter.}

And you subjective prefence shows.... what?

[quote]I would say that the theoretical ideal is probably cardoid bass all the way through. [quote]

No, because you have to shift to smaller wavelengths eventually where a cardiod source becomes unideal. Dipole works better in the lower midrange.

Quote:


What frequency range are you talking about? FWIW, I think for most domestic living room sized spaces, multisubs should go up to about 150Hz. Lower as the room gets larger.

The inferiority of monopoles can be seen as high up as 1khz. No multiple subs approach goes that high.

Quote:


Nonsense. A little treatment of the front wall does help a little, but the difference is surprisingly minor.

What happened to 'show me the controlled listening tests that prove these subjective claims'?

Quote:


I would never consider putting speakers 4' into a room any more. It's just not necessary. As for diffraction, I'm found much more response errors caused by crap between the speakers (equipment stands, RPTVs, and so on) than by close-to-wall placement. Speakers designed to be placed into the room will sound boomy when placed against the wall. But that's why we DIY: to design our speaker systems to organically integrate within the constraints of our rooms!

If you aren't willing to use optimal placement for any loudspeaker then that is your constraint. It has nothing to do with ideal accurate sound reproduction where i would never have near wall placement.


Quote:


Nonsense. A speaker that needs to be in the middle of the damn room is not "practical."

My family toom is 18 x 17 x 8. the baffle, not the rear of the speaker is 30 inches from the wall. the seats are 10 feet from the baffle. and this is with box speakers. At no times does the room feel conjested or impractical. I do need to add boost to get adequate BSC though.

sorry, but 4 feet is not halfway into the room - far from it.

Quote:


And how the hell do you do three if you ao need a TV of some sort in the room? The middle one will block the screen!

a compromise is necessary. the name of that compromise is either a higher mounted screen or a monopole center.

Quote:


Of course not, but that's also entirely out of the scope of the comment to which I was replying, "Your assumptions are based on specific designs, most of which are over a decade old in concept." Concept =/= implementation.

Point is, they're not a frame of reference for a dipole's ability to control directivity, which is possible.

Quote:


My position, if anything, is on more solid theoretical ground than yours. But obviously there's still some compromise in the end. Dipoles ultimately seem more compromised than compromise, though.

What theoretical ground have you given? Your subjective preference and the fact that you are okay with mounting monopoles near walls? Hasn't convinced me. The unbacked statement that dipoles only control LF directivity?
Eternal Velocity is offline  
post #101 of 197 Old 04-06-2011, 12:54 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DS-21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,903
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 478 Post(s)
Liked: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

lmao...didnt care I was trying to make a point about you calling quality speakers deisgns "FLAWED". Its an insult but somehow you do not understand that

If they have response errors in the midband due to simple lack of attention/care to control directivity in the crossover region, then they are far more "flawed" than "quality."

--
"In many cases there aren’t two sides unless one side is 'reality' and the other is 'nonsense.'" - Phil Plait
Serious Audio Blog 
DS-21 is offline  
post #102 of 197 Old 04-06-2011, 02:20 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

If they have response errors in the midband due to simple lack of attention/care to control directivity in the crossover region, then they are far more "flawed" than "quality."

If you can not hear it then its only a technical flaw and then people have a choice to care about that priority or not. IMO, you are as about as subjective as they come in the DIY audio forum. Your very specific perference to what is good or bad is well documented. When there is no "wiggle" room there isn't much to really debate somewhere there is a flaw in every "hardcore" stance. Controlled listening tests prove over and over that the line between good and great is a big blurry mess.

I will just agree to disagree with a very loose usage of the word "Flawed". I think they can design circles around someone like you (or myself). If someone can not do better they should not make disparaging remarks towards others that can.

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
post #103 of 197 Old 04-06-2011, 02:29 PM
AVS Special Member
 
DS-21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,903
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 478 Post(s)
Liked: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

If you can not hear it then its only a technical flaw and then people have a choice to care about that priority or not.

Obviously it's audible. It's why all such speakers have such pronounced sweet spots.

Now, if one only listens in a sweet spot and doesn't care what other people hear, I'll agree with you that it's not a flaw.

--
"In many cases there aren’t two sides unless one side is 'reality' and the other is 'nonsense.'" - Phil Plait
Serious Audio Blog 
DS-21 is offline  
post #104 of 197 Old 04-06-2011, 02:33 PM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

Obviously it's audible. It's why all such speakers have such pronounced sweet spots.

Now, if one only listens in a sweet spot and doesn't care what other people hear, I'll agree with you that it's not a flaw.

haha, we get to the meat of it all

Who the heck is not sitting in the sweet spot?? We always get the best spot...family, friends will never care about SQ like we do.

I have always agreed with your technical veiw on the design choice, all designs have compromises. In the end all that matters is how they are used. If people know the compromise of the design they can then try to minimize that compromise.

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
post #105 of 197 Old 04-06-2011, 05:02 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Bigus's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: The South
Posts: 4,258
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 51
Not all dome tweeter to midrange transitions have the polar mismatch you imagine. Not everyone thinks using a 15" mid is ideal.

Not all omnis need wg to work properly.

Pattern control can be maintained into the high midrange for dipoles if careful attention is paid to driver selection and baffle and xo design. By using a rear tweeter or one with natural dipole response, power response can remain fairly flat much higher still.

You lambast the loss of perfect pattern control of dipoles in the upper octave, but dismiss the complete loss of any pattern control in the bottom several for practical horns.

You cherry pick design factoids or implementations that support your zealotry and dismiss all others.

You single out one source for ribbon tweeter measurements of questionable methodology and ignore all others.

Why not talk about horn amplification of harmonic distortion products? Ripple in response and diffraction effects many describe as honk?

How's this for subjective... Put any decent dipole and any superbly designed horn or waveguide of your choice into a room. I'll go to the next and tell you which is which. The dipole will sound uncannily real. The wg in a box will sound absolutely fake. I wouldn't put that crap in my home if you paid me to take it from you. There is something about power response in the midbass that preserves a sense of realism. Your design choice loses that. They are all thus seriously flawed and not worthy of consideration in any serious home installation where faithfulness to real sound is a concern.

Bigus is offline  
post #106 of 197 Old 04-06-2011, 05:25 PM
Advanced Member
 
saabracer23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Salem, Oregon
Posts: 558
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Not all dome tweeter to midrange transitions have the polar mismatch you imagine. Not everyone thinks using a 15" mid is ideal.

Not all omnis need wg to work properly.

Pattern control can be maintained into the high midrange for dipoles if careful attention is paid to driver selection and baffle and xo design. By using a rear tweeter or one with natural dipole response, power response can remain fairly flat much higher still.

You lambast the loss of perfect pattern control of dipoles in the upper octave, but dismiss the complete loss of any pattern control in the bottom several for practical horns.

You cherry pick design factoids or implementations that support your zealotry and dismiss all others.

You single out one source for ribbon tweeter measurements of questionable methodology and ignore all others.

Why not talk about horn amplification of harmonic distortion products? Ripple in response and diffraction effects many describe as honk?

How's this for subjective... Put any decent dipole and any superbly designed horn or waveguide of your choice into a room. I'll go to the next and tell you which is which. The dipole will sound uncannily real. The wg in a box will sound absolutely fake. I wouldn't put that crap in my home if you paid me to take it from you. There is something about power response in the midbass that preserves a sense of realism. Your design choice loses that. They are all thus seriously flawed and not worthy of consideration in any serious home installation where faithfulness to real sound is a concern.

+1 on the last paragraph

I have sat down to many waveguide/horn designs (I still own my very nice JBL two way) and not one would I ever remotely consider to take on my music duty, not in a million years. In fact my jbls are in storage until I can get a dedicated ht (awesome for that). For an all around, can only have one pair, WG are not the way to go IMHO. I'm in the middle of building my full statements and i know already they'll blow away anything I've had in the past, including WG designs. I have owned a couple of dipoles, but the were mid grade commercial designs and I thought they sounded great if you could afford to pull them into the room enough. Who knows maybe the jbls will be sold if the statements satisfy in the ht.

Oh and the horizontal dispersion of the statements is quite amazing, pretty wide sweet spot. Vertical off axis is not as bad as people may think. For most critical listening you'll be sitting in one spot anyways.
Dan
saabracer23 is offline  
post #107 of 197 Old 04-06-2011, 07:18 PM
Member
 
phenosity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2009
Posts: 34
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by saabracer23 View Post

+1 on the last paragraph

I have sat down to many waveguide/horn designs (I still own my very nice JBL two way) and not one would I ever remotely consider to take on my music duty, not in a million years. In fact my jbls are in storage until I can get a dedicated ht (awesome for that). For an all around, can only have one pair, WG are not the way to go IMHO. I'm in the middle of building my full statements and i know already they'll blow away anything I've had in the past, including WG designs. I have owned a couple of dipoles, but the were mid grade commercial designs and I thought they sounded great if you could afford to pull them into the room enough. Who knows maybe the jbls will be sold if the statements satisfy in the ht.

Oh and the horizontal dispersion of the statements is quite amazing, pretty wide sweet spot. Vertical off axis is not as bad as people may think. For most critical listening you'll be sitting in one spot anyways.
Dan

dont know what you mean by horizontal sweetspot
sweetspot to me means the spot were everything is perfectly placed a perfect balance between left and right on my statements thats only about 5-6 feet then one over powers the other i dont know if thats wide i havent additioned many speakers
phenosity is offline  
post #108 of 197 Old 04-06-2011, 08:00 PM
Advanced Member
 
saabracer23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Salem, Oregon
Posts: 558
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 3 Post(s)
Liked: 29
I guess sweet spot was the wrong term to use, it was said earlier that the horizontal off axis listening of the statements would be poor due to the horizontal dispersion of the tweeter. I was just stating that it's quite the opposite.

Dan
saabracer23 is offline  
post #109 of 197 Old 04-07-2011, 09:36 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DS-21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,903
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 478 Post(s)
Liked: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Not all dome tweeter to midrange transitions have the polar mismatch you imagine.

Show me just one that doesn't, without employing some kind of directivity control on the tweeter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Not everyone thinks using a 15" mid is ideal.

Well, it obviously depends on the 15, and depends on how high into the midrange it plays. And of course some people like the sound of pint-sized drivers overloading, and are unnerved by systems that don't change color as they get loud.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Not all omnis need wg to work properly.

What's your point? Had you read my above most with the slightest modicum of care, you would have seen that I not only conceded that point, but actually mentioned non-WG dipoles (Walsh/DDD, etc.), before WG's. And again, I provided actual examples, whereas you're content with hand-waving. Telling, that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Pattern control can be maintained into the high midrange for dipoles if careful attention is paid to driver selection and baffle and xo design. By using a rear tweeter or one with natural dipole response, power response can remain fairly flat much higher still.

Maybe it can, but it usually isn't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

You lambast the loss of perfect pattern control of dipoles in the upper octave, but dismiss the complete loss of any pattern control in the bottom several for practical horns.

Again, you're just not reading the words in front of you carefully. I've not written one word about the "loss of perfect pattern control in the upper octave." The upper octave is perceptually not that important. It's the midrange, with the inherent power response flaws caused by joining a driver with narrowing directivity at the top of its passband and one that is omnidirectional at the bottom of its passband. And then to add insult to injury that poor midrange is smeared with reflections from back walls that of course don't really match the front radiation anyway because of diffraction caused by baskets, mounting hardware, baffle-cutouts (assuming a flush- or surface- mount in front), and so on.

Do I think loss of pattern control down low is a problem? Frankly, no. Besides, all systems end up transitioning to omnidirectional radiation down low anyway. (Assuming they actually get low, which requires an outsized commitment to large drivers in a dipole.)

So I'm not even sure that a gradual transition from a given pattern to omni isn't the theoretical ideal. And even if it is not the theoretical ideal, chasing pattern control down low at the expense of degrading the midrange (and, generally speaking, neutering the bass in the process) strikes me as foolish.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

You single out one source for ribbon tweeter measurements of questionable methodology and ignore all others.

Yet more feckless handwaving. What was wrong with Krutke's methodology, and what "all others" are out there?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

Why not talk about horn amplification of harmonic distortion products? Ripple in response and diffraction effects many describe as honk?

Do you really want to compare distortion between properly-sized speakers employing WG's and pea-shooters?

As for "horn honk," there are many horn shapes/configurations that sound nasty. Really nasty. Unlistenably nasty. Simple solution: do not employ one of those, and use all of the known tricks in the book to otherwise improve the ones you are using.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

How's this for subjective... Put any decent dipole and any superbly designed horn or waveguide of your choice into a room. I'll go to the next and tell you which is which. The dipole will sound uncannily real. The wg in a box will sound absolutely fake.

Dude, you really like to wave your hands, don't you?

Point me to a "real" sounding dipole. I'd like to hear one. And if it doesn't have the dynamics to do Mahler 8 or Shostakovich 10 with minimal-to-no dynamic compression, it can't count.

--
"In many cases there aren’t two sides unless one side is 'reality' and the other is 'nonsense.'" - Phil Plait
Serious Audio Blog 
DS-21 is offline  
post #110 of 197 Old 04-07-2011, 09:54 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post


Yet more feckless handwaving. What was wrong with Krutke's methodology, and what "all others" are out there?

1. Because it pretty much has posted many times that he does not like Ribbons. He set out too subjectively try and paint them in a bad way.

2. He never measured the higher end RAAL, Fountek type ribbons. You really think Salk, Holtz, etc would use Ribbons in designs if they had issues like Krutke tried to paint?? You need to think a little more about that one

3. Krutke is not the last name in design either, I will never build a box designed by him myself. Rick from Selah. Jed from Clearwave, Jim Holtz, Curt C. etc all have had GREAT success with Ribbons. Along with measurements that disprove what Krutke posted on his site.

btw, Im still with you on waveguide designs

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
post #111 of 197 Old 04-07-2011, 09:58 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bigus View Post

How's this for subjective... Put any decent dipole and any superbly designed horn or waveguide of your choice into a room. I'll go to the next and tell you which is which. The dipole will sound uncannily real. The wg in a box will sound absolutely fake. I wouldn't put that crap in my home if you paid me to take it from you. There is something about power response in the midbass that preserves a sense of realism. Your design choice loses that. They are all thus seriously flawed and not worthy of consideration in any serious home installation where faithfulness to real sound is a concern.

If it suits your specific needs then cool, enjoy. I do not like open baffle or dipole designs the never sounded real to me. I would choose my ribbon designs for their pin point accuracy (2 channel critical listening choice).

But this is a HT performance is the discussion, is it not?? Your dipole solution does not stand a chance in that category. Directivity and dynamics is the top priorities when it comes to that application. I have never heard a better design then Danley's SH-50s.

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
post #112 of 197 Old 04-07-2011, 10:04 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DS-21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,903
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 478 Post(s)
Liked: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

I posted the polars on the previous page of a very recent, far from cost no object one, which you did not even look at.

No, I didn't. Sorry. I didn't see them until now. I think you were posting while I was posting.

For ease of following the conversation, I'm going to repost the polars here:


I would love to hear the NaO Note. On paper it is a very interesting-looking speaker. Maybe it would change my mind about dipoles, even. I'm certainly open to the possibility.

Ignoring the tippy-top octave, which you suggest and I think is absolutely fair to do, the main thing that sticks out at me is that there's a flare-up of off-axis energy in the midrange. That is more evident on the other view of this graph, which I could not figure out how to paste in here.

Also, note that there's a fairly large degree of variance between the front and rear radiation, an 8dB window or so, visible in this graph of the rear response normalized to the front response.



Why? One can reasonably guess that factors such as diffraction from baskets/motor structures/mounting hardware as well as from baffle cutouts is the major culprit.

Note also where the variance lies: again ignoring the extreme highs, between 1-6kHz. IOW, right in the midrange. So to say that the rear reflections are exactly like the front reflections is, in the most important region, simply wrong.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

No, because i've never seen em compared like this, nor does a subjective preference for box speakers by people accustomed to box speakers their whole lives reflect the ability to reproduce live sound. What I can say is that the measurements show my position clearly.

I'm not at all sure that is the case. But even if you are in fact correct, the real threshold question to my mind is, what does one trade off? And the answer seems to be midrange smearing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

I am not here to argue semantics or what geddes says. Dipoles couple to rooms better plain and simple.

If by "better" you mean "less in the lower region, and more in the middle," then OK. I do not agree with that definition of "better."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

No, because you have to shift to smaller wavelengths eventually where a cardiod source becomes unideal. Dipole works better in the lower midrange.

But then you have the problem of transitional regions. If we're talking smooth transitions, I believe (could be off here, admittedly) that while the transition from cardoid to monopole can be fairly smooth, that's not true with cardoid-dipole or dipole-monopole.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

The inferiority of monopoles can be seen as high up as 1khz. No multiple subs approach goes that high.

Happily, that's right about where imaging cues start. So the need for directivity control below that is relatively less.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

If you aren't willing to use optimal placement for any loudspeaker then that is your constraint. It has nothing to do with ideal accurate sound reproduction where i would never have near wall placement.

That's just silly. Shoved out into the middle of the room is not "optimal." Not optimal for anything. If anything, built right into the front wall is probably "optimal," both from a sonic perspective and an aesthetic perspective. (Assuming the front wall is a low-diffraction surface. Hang a bunch of pictures or an LCD on it, or put furniture right against it, etc., and that might not be the case.) Look at something like Cowan's soffit-mounted speaker with Lamdba Unity horns and Peerless XLS woofers:



Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

sorry, but 4 feet is not halfway into the room - far from it.

Nice scope shift, from my "middle of the room" (and yes, 4 feet in counts) to your "halfway into the room." Words matter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

a compromise is necessary. the name of that compromise is either a higher mounted screen or a monopole center.

Oh, wow. You're seriously willing to have a center channel that's different from the other two mains, and talk about high fidelity in the same breath?

--
"In many cases there aren’t two sides unless one side is 'reality' and the other is 'nonsense.'" - Phil Plait
Serious Audio Blog 
DS-21 is offline  
post #113 of 197 Old 04-07-2011, 10:06 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

I would love to hear the NaO Note. On paper it is a very interesting-looking speaker. Maybe it would change my mind about dipoles, even. I'm certainly open to the possibility.


John K and Geddes have had several great debates over on DIYaudio.com about their products, interesting stuff!!

John does have a great site too.
http://www.musicanddesign.com/Old_Home.html

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
post #114 of 197 Old 04-07-2011, 10:13 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DS-21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,903
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 478 Post(s)
Liked: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

1. Because it pretty much has posted many times that he does not like Ribbons. He set out too subjectively try and paint them in a bad way.

That's not a methodological flaw. If his biases crept in a way that compromised the measurements, that would change things. But nobody to my knowledge has reasonably alleged that.

Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

He never measured the higher end RAAL, Fountek type ribbons. You really think Salk, Holtz, etc would use Ribbons in designs if they had issues like Krutke tried to paint?? You need to think a little more about that one

To the first point, he measured a Fountek and an Aurum Cantus ribbon.

And to your second point, yes if there was something they found subjectively appealing about their sound. (To say nothing of simple market differentiation.) Objectively flawed measurements may well translate into subjective preference.

Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

3. Krutke is not the last name in design either, I will never build a box designed by him myself.

That's true but also not a methodological flaw. Nobody is the "last name in design."


Quote:
Originally Posted by penngray View Post

John K and Geddes have had several great debates over on DIYaudio.com about their products, interesting stuff!!

John does have a great site too.
http://www.musicanddesign.com/Old_Home.html

I think many of us have wasted a fair number of hours following the exchanges of those two gentlemen. Those who haven't, should.

--
"In many cases there aren’t two sides unless one side is 'reality' and the other is 'nonsense.'" - Phil Plait
Serious Audio Blog 
DS-21 is offline  
post #115 of 197 Old 04-07-2011, 10:19 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

That's not a methodological flaw. If his biases crept in a way that compromised the measurements, that would change things. But nobody to my knowledge has reasonably alleged that.

To the first point, he measured a Fountek and an Aurum Cantus ribbon.

Do some searches, he simply measured the cheaper ribbons and he measured them below where they would honestly be XOed. He more or less forced them into a measurement situation that should not happen.

Zaph thinks everyone should buy cheap tweeters, cheap speakers. His site is the epitome of trying to prove the low cost solution is just as good. Ribbons cost a lot more $$$ so he paints them as no good because of the cost factor.

Again, search High end Ribbon measurements and then you will learn something about high end ribbons NOT having distortion and having the cleanest CSD you can imagine.


Quote:


And to your second point, yes if there was something they found subjectively appealing about their sound. (To say nothing of simple market differentiation.)

Marketing? Jim Holtz statements are more about marketing. Give it up, check out where he XOs the ribbon, check out the differences in the measurements with that product and what Zaph tried to do.

Anyways, no one is here to convince you to like ribbons but your post about their distortion and performance is false and misleading those who are asking about designs with ribbons in them. I would not own ribbon designs myself, I would not have just built another box (Im liking it!!) for them if I thought they are bad. Im not one to just read about measurements, I buy, listen, measure myself. I own all those dome choices and they are not as good.

Quote:


I think many of us have wasted a fair number of hours following the exchanges of those two gentlemen. Those who haven't, should

haha, so true

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
post #116 of 197 Old 04-07-2011, 10:35 AM
Advanced Member
 
yelnatsch517's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 985
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 5 Post(s)
Liked: 14
Sorry to have stirred up such a debate, but I, and I'm sure many others as well, am learning quite a bit from it. I like debates such as these. Maybe they wouldn't be so informative for someone more knowledgeable, but for a noob like me, it gives a unique opportunity to learn.

Quote:
Originally Posted by saabracer23 View Post

+1 on the last paragraph

I have sat down to many waveguide/horn designs (I still own my very nice JBL two way) and not one would I ever remotely consider to take on my music duty, not in a million years. In fact my jbls are in storage until I can get a dedicated ht (awesome for that). For an all around, can only have one pair, WG are not the way to go IMHO. I'm in the middle of building my full statements and i know already they'll blow away anything I've had in the past, including WG designs. I have owned a couple of dipoles, but the were mid grade commercial designs and I thought they sounded great if you could afford to pull them into the room enough. Who knows maybe the jbls will be sold if the statements satisfy in the ht.

Oh and the horizontal dispersion of the statements is quite amazing, pretty wide sweet spot. Vertical off axis is not as bad as people may think. For most critical listening you'll be sitting in one spot anyways.
Dan

Do you think the full statements go low enough to be considered full range? I was thinking something along the lines of Sealed Statements + 15" Bass Bins + MiniDSP. That should give me clean frequency response from 20Hz to 20kHz, right? I've also always preferred the sealed sound as well.

Here's a pic below for reference. Looks clean doesn't it?



From the man himself:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Holtz View Post

I knew the subs and Statements would blend well since we were crossing so low and they're both sealed but the sonic results exceeded my expectations. The bass is the best I've heard. It's unbelievably tight and powerful. Chris has a very big room too but there's no problem pressurizing it with the subs. Deep bass notes in music are real sounding and they are extremely detailed.

If I were building my Statements now, I'd certainly strongly consider taking the same approach as Chris. It's sweet!

Jim

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim Holtz View Post

The sound of this combination is phenomenal. The bass of the Sealed Statements is ultra tight and the power of the 15" TC Sounds subs is unbelievable. It's just killer sound, IMHO.

I'm pleased that I was able to help you along the way when needed. One day, you'll cuss me for getting you hooked on DIY though.

Great job Chris! You should be proud of your achievements and of course of the Statements.

Jim

Edited:
I'm sold. That is what I'm going with. If Jim praises speakers like that, it can't be wrong.
yelnatsch517 is offline  
post #117 of 197 Old 04-07-2011, 10:37 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Eternal Velocity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by DS-21 View Post

Ignoring the tippy-top octave, which you suggest and I think is absolutely fair to do, the main thing that sticks out at me is that there's a flare-up of off-axis energy in the midrange.

Quite the exaggeration. It's an extremely good polar and you're just grasping at straws. Not to mention I did not use as an example of the world's ideal loudspeaker. Just an example that a dipole can control directivity through the whole passband if that is the goal. Your fundamental understanding of how dipoles work needs to be reassessed before you go around criticizing thier so-called flaws. Like I said, "it's not about whether such a thing does exist, but rather that it can". The Nao Note, at $2000 isn't even a cost no object design. Throw in a DEQX or two, pick drivers with even better matching, heck throw in a waveguide, and I guaruntee you a dipole will sound better than a monopole in trying to reproduce a live event.

Quote:


Also, note that there's a fairly large degree of variance between the front and rear radiation, an 8dB window or so, visible in this graph of the rear response normalized to the front response.



Why? One can reasonably guess that factors such as diffraction from baskets/motor structures/mounting hardware as well as from baffle cutouts is the major culprit.

Um.. no. That has likely nothing to do with it. It's likely just a function of the dipole equalization applied.

Quote:


Note also where the variance lies: again ignoring the extreme highs, between 1-6kHz. IOW, right in the midrange. So to say that the rear reflections are exactly like the front reflections is, in the most important region, simply wrong.

Perhaps in this sense, but the idea that they color the sound is also wrong. You'd have to ask the designer about the rear wave response but it's intentional for the end result speaker, I'm sure. Contrary to your belief, people don't design speakers to sound colored.

Quote:


I'm not at all sure that is the case. But even if you are in fact correct, the real threshold question to my mind is, what does one trade off? And the answer seems to be midrange smearing.

"seems to be"? Just wild conjecture. A dipole is a complex sort of speaker. It can't be described or designed as simply as a monopole. Unless you have personally heared this so-called smearing you're just going off on a limb based on measurements you likely don't comprehend (mind you, nor do I, which is why I couldn't design a dipole myself)

Quote:


If by "better" you mean "less in the lower region, and more in the middle," then OK. I do not agree with that definition of "better."

No, by better I mean "it is measuably and smoother decays like real live bass without the audibility of the huge peaks and valleys of single monopole speakers, except here we can push up well higher in frequency than the multiple subs approach".

With equalization we get the low end flat as low as 20hz. The tradeoff is raw output, although below 50hz we can add a monopole subwoofer which will behave the same way. A U-Frame also offers more output.

Quote:


But then you have the problem of transitional regions. If we're talking smooth transitions, I believe (could be off here, admittedly) that while the transition from cardoid to monopole can be fairly smooth, that's not true with cardoid-dipole or dipole-monopole.

You need to actually experience something before you start theorizing randomly about it. This is why i've had issue with all of your posts. You've essentially been brainwashed by the "Geddes School of Thought". and yet even geddes will tell you that the Orion has essentially as good sound as any he's ever heard in the roughly 500hz region- yet here's a guy who settles for monopoles and deal with bass by damping entire walls with CLD. Most of us don't want to rebuild entire walls just to get good upper bass and a clean lower midrange. He's cheap and doesn't want to do a dipole because it means going at least partially active and adding amps, and likely a second waveguide to the summa - cost would skyrocket to make that ultimate speaker. So he neglects the region from 200hz - 1khz essentailly, even though this in fact is as much a part of the speech region that we so desparately try to reproduce.

Quote:


Happily, that's right about where imaging cues start. So the need for directivity control below that is relatively less.

There's more to directivity than imaging. Directivity is not about imaging. I don't even give a **** about imaging. Directivity is about timbre. Only a speaker with a uniform polar response from 200hz-8khz will have the correct timbre.

Quote:


That's just silly. Shoved out into the middle of the room is not "optimal." Not optimal for anything.

Return to the fact that "4 feet is anything but the middle of the room".

I reiterate that the best placement for a speaker is with no boundaries near it. Whether you wish to accept that reality or not is your prerogitive.


Quote:


Nice scope shift, from my "middle of the room" (and yes, 4 feet in counts) to your "halfway into the room." Words matter.

sorry, but visually, unless you've got some tiny little closet, 28-32 inches or so is not visible "in the middle of the room". Even my electronics stand is a good 2 and a half feet deep add another foot for the baffle, toe it in with the inside edge where the stand is, and aesthetically it's anything but obtrusive - it looks elegant and ostentatious maybe but far from impractical. Not to mention the ideal dipole requires zero room treatment compared to the countless bass trapping necessary for any monopole.

But if you want to compromise fidelity for aesthetics that's your prerogative. Certainly one many of us are familiar with seeing.

Quote:


Oh, wow. You're seriously willing to have a center channel that's different from the other two mains, and talk about high fidelity in the same breath?

I don't listen to multi channel music. If I did, I would go with three dipoles and not bother with a screen. For a home theater, I would compromise and go with monopoles all around and lose the supreme timbral accuracy of a dipole. It's all about compromises. I don't have an issue with monopole speakers especially for home theater where dynamic output and special effects rule rather than a realistic presentation of a live event (and movies are not a live event) but they're far more fundamentally flawed. I'm never one to go around parading my views and telling people their speakers are flawed for their purposes. That would be you, and I was merely addressing your innacurate indictment of dipoles.

For a normal living room, stereo is enough anyways iMO.

I don't mind room treatments in a dedicated HT room. In a home theater the goals are different, in a dedicated surround listening room the goals are different, and in a living room the goals are different. Why should I let the compromises of one approach affect my goal for the other? Why should I wall mount a speaker designed to reproduce a symphony? Sorry, but that does not give a believable stereo illusion.
Eternal Velocity is offline  
post #118 of 197 Old 04-07-2011, 11:15 AM
AVS Special Member
 
Eternal Velocity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 1,397
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 30 Post(s)
Liked: 61
Quote:
Originally Posted by yelnatsch517 View Post

I'm sold. That is what I'm going with. If Jim praises speakers like that, it can't be wrong.

It looks like a great combo, but I suspect you can do better than even the statements if you're planning on adding a pair of LMS-Rs to handle the bottom end.

With the bottom two-three octaves taken care of, you can focus on the critical region from 100hz-400hz or so, where much of the energy is a lot of music (and movie effects) is. Something build around acoutic elegance woofers maybe
Eternal Velocity is offline  
post #119 of 197 Old 04-07-2011, 11:20 AM
AVS Addicted Member
 
penngray's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Florida
Posts: 26,779
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 1 Post(s)
Liked: 31
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

It looks like a great combo, but I suspect you can do better than even the statements if you're planning on adding a pair of LMS-Rs to handle the bottom end.

With the bottom two-three octaves taken care of, you can focus on the critical region from 100hz-400hz or so, where much of the energy is a lot of music (and movie effects) is. Something build around acoutic elegance woofers maybe

I agree the Full size Statement is really wasting $$$ if someone is going to run a bass bin up to 400Hz. Find a quality 2-way design and put it on top of a bass bin.

I just finished this one (Neopro5i + PHL1120)
Attachment 208215

Its great for >= 400Hz
LL

It is not "open-minded" to reject knowledge - Bob Lee
penngray is offline  
post #120 of 197 Old 04-07-2011, 11:42 AM
AVS Special Member
 
DS-21's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 3,903
Mentioned: 2 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 478 Post(s)
Liked: 304
Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

Quite the exaggeration. It's an extremely good polar and you're just grasping at straws.

I never said it wasn't. Quite the contrary: if it weren't, I would have no interest in hearing them. I have no interest in hearing the Statements, by contrast.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

Not to mention I did not use as an example of the world's ideal loudspeaker.

I assume you used the best currently-available one with published measurements. Any "ideal loudspeaker" is rather besides the point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

Um.. no. That has likely nothing to do with it. It's likely just a function of the dipole equalization applied.

Huh? That graph is of the difference between the front response and the rear response. How would "dipole equalization" cause an ~8dB swing in the midrange radiation from the rear compared to the midrange radiation from the front.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

Perhaps in this sense, but the idea that they color the sound is also wrong.

You don't think midrange reflections bouncing around against the front wall color the sound?

And I think your word choice is poor: "intentional" should probably be "unavoidable."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

I'm sure. Contrary to your belief, people don't design speakers to sound colored.

A quick listen at any hifi studio will prove me right and you wrong on that point.

There are very, very few speakers designed to sound uncolored. Speakers at the level we're discussing are generally the exceptions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

It can't be described or designed as simply as a monopole. Unless you have personally heared this so-called smearing

I have, on every dipole I've heard. Except for the aforementioned 12" BMS coax + 18" woofer one, but I'm pretty sure it was monopole from somewhere slightly north of 1kHz.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

You need to actually experience something before you start theorizing randomly about it.

You seem to think I haven't, despite responding to my post have having heard various models of dipoles, supra. Some of them designed by the acknowledged titans of the field.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

You've essentially been brainwashed by the "Geddes School of Thought".

If you think reading an idea, trying it out, and finding that it improved things compared to what one has tried before is "brainwashing," I suppose that's your right.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

and yet even geddes will tell you that the Orion has essentially as good sound as any he's ever heard in the roughly 500hz region-

I know, I read those posts. But again, at what cost?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

So he neglects the region from 200hz - 1khz essentailly, even though this in fact is as much a part of the speech region that we so desparately try to reproduce.

Wow that's reductionist, but whatever.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

There's more to directivity than imaging. Directivity is not about imaging. I don't even give a **** about imaging. Directivity is about timbre. Only a speaker with a uniform polar response from 200hz-8khz will have the correct timbre.

What are you basing that on?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

I reiterate that the best placement for a speaker is with no boundaries near it. Whether you wish to accept that reality or not is your prerogitive.

It's simply not reality, unless one is limiting her/him-self to dipoles.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

Not to mention the ideal dipole requires zero room treatment compared to the countless bass trapping necessary for any monopole.

You mean, except for treating that whole front wall to get rid of that nasty midrange smear...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

For a normal living room, stereo is enough anyways iMO.

That simply makes me think you've not tried it.

Two-channel is woefully inadequate at conveying the presence of a live performance compared to a system with a hard center. I would never compromise my system like that again, after hearing music reproduced in three channels. I even have three front channels in the nearfield system...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Eternal Velocity View Post

Why should I wall mount a speaker designed to reproduce a symphony? Sorry, but that does not give a believable stereo illusion.

Just because you lack experience....

Besides, that symphony was probably mixed on soffit-mounted speakers in the first place!

And I thought you didn't care about imaging, yet here you are with this whole "believable stereo illusion" thing.

I don't think there's anything profitable that can emerge in subsequent conversation along these lines, so to close, I will simply say that movie/TV sound reproduction does not enter into my personal criteria at all. I design my systems around the most texturally and dynamically complex program material I enjoy, which is large-scale orchestral. The approach I've found thus far that does the best job of hearing what I've heard in the world's great orchestral halls (the Musikverein in Vienna, the Philharmonie in Berlin, the Concertgebouw in Amsterdam, etc.) is three controlled directivity speakers with multiple subwoofers underneath, mains as wide as the room will allow and toed in such that their axes cross ahead of the listening position. And all three mounted high for two reasons: first, to get the center off-axis (necessary for a system based on coaxes) and second, to provide consistent sound when either seated or standing. That this arrangement has obvious aesthetic benefits as well (no speakers deep into the room cluttering it up) is a welcome but unplanned bonus.

--
"In many cases there aren’t two sides unless one side is 'reality' and the other is 'nonsense.'" - Phil Plait
Serious Audio Blog 
DS-21 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Reply DIY Speakers and Subs



Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off