Digital Active Speaker Thread..... - Page 6 - AVS Forum
Forum Jump: 
 
Thread Tools
post #151 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 10:30 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
BTW. here's the new Apogee "Definitive" speaker using DEQX. Not how I would do it, but one thing we know - the original Apogee designers may have tried a 24dB/octave passive crossover, but they never had the opportunity to try DEQX -



Apogee Definitive w/DEQX - $105K (Au, I believe)

John
Alimentall is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #152 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 10:40 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by faberryman View Post

I don't think I would buy speakers blind based on measurements, and I don't think I would buy one speaker over another if it didn't sound as good even if it measured better. Perhaps you, like DougWinsor who also worships at the alter of measurements, would.

I wouldn't expect anyone to buy based on good measurements. However, I might avoid a speaker based on bad measurements.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #153 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 10:44 AM
AVS Special Member
 
AndreYew's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: Southern California
Posts: 1,670
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbius View Post

NHT may have concluded that - but that is NOT the conclusion of Keith Howard and
Leo Spiegel, the chief designer for the original Apogee speakers:

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

First, Keith Howard was not talking about crossover filters, and JA and Kal both had a hard time identifying the ringing filters on his blind test. I think it would reasonable to think that ringing artifacts are fairly subtle at best after reading that article.

Second, the Apogee comparison is not appropriate given that they were using analog crossovers, which have lots of artifacts as you increase steepness, and they were trying to combine two very different radiators: a dipolar ribbon and an omni woofer. The NHT design blends two similar drivers.

Also, is your argument about acausality or steep filters? The Stage was done with analog filters, and therefore cannot have acausal filters.

Third, it is not clear at all that the aspect of the sound of the NHTs you dislike is due to the ringing.

--Andre
AndreYew is offline  
post #154 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 10:45 AM
 
faberryman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 546
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by syswei View Post

Since you listed the DEQXed Salk HT3A, this might be a good point to also repost what their designer, Dennis Murphy, had to say about DEQX:

Again, I don't really disagree with you about the superior flexibility possible with DEQX-type machines. But I do know that if you start with high quality drivers that don't have weird peaks that can't be deat with using a simple trap circuit, it's possible to match the sound of the DEQX, or at least come close enough that most listeners could not pass a blind test. Actually, that's wrong--the DEQX can fix room bass peaks (and so can much cheaper devices). Aside from room effects, Jim and I strained to hear a difference between the HT3 and the HT3A. We finally decided that there was a bit more presence in the DEQX in the upper midbass. I switched the bass-mid cross to second order acoustic, and that fixed that (this was a long time ago). We could hear no advantage to whatever phase correction DEQX was implementing, and this has been my experience in other demonstrations. There is a theoretical advantage, but the real world advantage just hasn't been substantiated yet. Still--if the price were much lower, and I thought people would put up with the added complexity, I would recommend that Jim switch out of passive Dennis to Active DEQX.
http://www.avsforum.com/avs-vb/showt...1#post15520811

Interesting that Dennis Murphy posted those comments just a month ago in response to Alimentall's gushing over DEQX as the next coming.
faberryman is offline  
post #155 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 10:46 AM
 
faberryman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 546
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

I wouldn't expect anyone to buy based on good measurements. However, I might avoid a speaker based on bad measurements.

Duh.
faberryman is offline  
post #156 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 10:54 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by faberryman View Post

Interesting that Dennis Murphy posted those comments just a month ago in response to Alimentall's gushing over DEQX as the next coming.

Also interesting that a guy who's job it is to build passive crossovers not only has respect for DEQX, but also admits to being endangered by it.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #157 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 10:59 AM
AVS Special Member
 
syswei's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: CT
Posts: 1,100
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

Also interesting that a guy who's job it is to build passive crossovers not only has reverence for DEQX, but also admits to being endangered by it.

Reverence?

Just more Alimentall-twisted interpretations. I think Dennis' words speak for themselves. No one here needs your twisting, John.
syswei is offline  
post #158 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 11:00 AM
 
faberryman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 546
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

Also interesting that a guy who's job it is to build passive crossovers not only has reverence for DEQX, but also admits to being endangered by it.

It is interesting that he said:

"There is a theoretical advantage, but the real world advantage just hasn't been substantiated yet." And this is from someone you say has reverence for it.
faberryman is offline  
post #159 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 11:05 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by syswei View Post

Reverence?

Just more Alimentall-twisted interpretations. I think Dennis' words speak for themselves. No one here needs your twisting, John.

I am taking this from other comments from Dennis. Actually, I meant to use the word "respect". He has said that the job he does will eventually be obsolete.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #160 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 11:08 AM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by faberryman View Post

It is interesting that he said:

"There is a theoretical advantage, but the real world advantage just hasn't been substantiated yet." And this is from someone you say has reverence for it.

I do believe he has also said in other posts that it is much easier to get a given result with DEQX, whereas passive crossover design is a time intensive labor of love.

Cost is the primary thing keeping DSP from taking over. Once the total cost added per unit is equal to or less than the cost of passive crossover development, it will take over *even if* it isn't better (which it is) because mass market companies will adopt it en masse and give real headaches to flat earth high-end companies. Wi-fi speakers also require internal amplfication, so it is a *cheap* addition to move to DSP crossovers at that point. And wi-fi speakers are coming. En masse. Meridian's next gen speakers will be IP and probably even wi-fi.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #161 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 11:40 AM
AVS Special Member
 
FrantzM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Southeast FL, USA
Posts: 2,071
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Hyperbole, oversimplification will destroy any serious discussions. I have posted my point of view and sincerely believe that the Digital Route to crossovers and music reproduction in general is the future... I refuse the point of view that any design using a Digital implementation is Automatically superior to ANY product utilizing more traditional approaches. I also refuse the weak argument that if it measured better and even it sounds crappy then it remains superior and that those who did find it lacking do not have good hearing... Very similar to those derided "Audiophile" arguments. I welcome balanced and constructive arguments not hyperbole and simplistic rationalization ... I am however beginning to see the contrary here...We shall see where that leads...

P.S. It is very easy to say the Xd measured better but better than WHAT? Can anyone point me to measurements of very large speakers such as the Wilson X-2? I have not seen any. I have heard the X-2 and my ears tells me very few speakers are in its league.. Very few.. Those who have heard it can attest to that..

Frantz
FrantzM is offline  
post #162 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 12:31 PM
 
faberryman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 546
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

Cost is the primary thing keeping DSP from taking over. Once the total cost added per unit is equal to or less than the cost of passive crossover development, it will take over *even if* it isn't better (which it is) because mass market companies will adopt it en masse and give real headaches to flat earth high-end companies.

When is the cost of an analog to digital converter and DSP crossovers going to be cheaper than the cost of analog crossover components. Don't forget, even if you use external amplification, you are still going to need a power cord going to the speaker to power the ADC and DSP making installation more difficult. I certainty think digital active speakers are terrific - I own three of them myself - but it it is never going to succeed on a cost basis when a handful of analog parts cost so little.
faberryman is offline  
post #163 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 12:40 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by faberryman View Post

When is the cost of an analog to digital converter and DSP crossovers going to be cheaper than the cost of analog crossover components. Don't forget, even if you use external amplification, you are still going to need a power cord going to the speaker to power the ADC and DSP making installation more difficult. I certainty think digital active speakers are terrific - I own three of them myself - but it it is never going to succeed on a cost basis when a handful of analog parts cost so little.

Pretty soon if you consider the amount of design time it takes to design a passive crossover that approaches the sound of a digital crossover. Inductors are pretty pricey. Or if you consider the increasing demand for wireless speakers with onboard active electronics.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #164 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 12:52 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by FrantzM View Post

Hyperbole, oversimplification will destroy any serious discussions.

I agree. So will taking someone's specific statement and *inferring* hyperbole and then oversimplifying it into a blanket statement. IE putting words in someone's mouth.
Quote:



I have posted my point of view and sincerely believe that the Digital Route to crossovers and music reproduction in general is the future... I refuse the point of view that any design using a Digital implementation is Automatically superior to ANY product utilizing more traditional approaches.

Again, I've never said this.
Quote:



I also refuse the weak argument that if it measured better and even it sounds crappy then it remains superior and that those who did find it lacking do not have good hearing... Very similar to those derided "Audiophile" arguments. I welcome balanced and constructive arguments not hyperbole and simplistic rationalization ... I am however beginning to see the contrary here...We shall see where that leads...

I am only going by my experience on this, with *hundreds* of demos with audiophiles, music lovers and just plain normal people. YMMV. You have one anecdote, but I have hundreds with Xd and with Meridian DSP speakers, as well as with DEQX driving various speakers.
Quote:



P.S. It is very easy to say the Xd measured better but better than WHAT? Can anyone point me to measurements of very large speakers such as the Wilson X-2? I have not seen any. I have heard the X-2 and my ears tells me very few speakers are in its league.. Very few.. Those who have heard it can attest to that..

Well, we can use the Maxx2 where it gets easily outperformed in the dispersion and FR accuracy range while the Xd hangs in there in other areas reasonably well. In fact, the Xd is more accurate at any point within ~30 degrees up, down or to the sides than the Maxx2 on axis. Partially DSP, partially just good design. But I can all but guarantee a similar result with most any monopole DEQX implementation because of the massive crossover flexibility and impulse response correction. That's the beauty of digital, being able to do what is difficult to do in the passive domain. The ability to 'have your cake and eat it too'. That's why we both say that DSP is the crossover technology of the future.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #165 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 12:58 PM
 
faberryman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 546
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

Well, we can use the Maxx2 where it gets easily outperformed in the dispersion and FR accuracy range while the Xd hangs in there in other areas reasonably well. In fact, the Xd is more accurate at any point within ~30 degrees up, down or to the sides than the Maxx2 on axis. Partially DSP, partially just good design.

Have you ever actually listened to the NHT Xd and the Wilson Maxx2 in the same room at the same time. If not, then you can to continue to jump up and down and say measurements, measurements, measurements, but you are in no position to say the Xd is a better sounding speaker than the Maxx2.
faberryman is offline  
post #166 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 01:19 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Morbius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Livermore, CA USA
Posts: 4,728
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

BTW. here's the new Apogee "Definitive" speaker using DEQX. Not how I would do it, but one thing we know - the original Apogee designers may have tried a 24dB/octave passive crossover, but they never had the opportunity to try DEQX

John,

That's why I said the "original" Apogee in my previous post.

There's a guy named "Graz" in Australia who has been making replacement ribbons
for Apogee speakers that has acquired the rights to the Apogee name a couple years
ago. The "Definitive" and the "Synergy" are his speakers.

Neither the "Definitive" nor the "Synergy" is a product of the design efforts of original
Apogee founders Jason Bloom and Leo Spiegel. The original Apogee company
was acquired by a Canadian company in the '90s; and they essentially let the company
die:

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

Jason Bloom unfortunately died after falling off a ladder several years ago.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
Morbius is offline  
post #167 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 01:30 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by faberryman View Post

Have you ever actually listened to the NHT Xd and the Wilson Maxx2 in the same room at the same time. If not, then you can to continue to jump up and down and say measurements, measurements, measurements, but you are in no position to say the Xd is a better sounding speaker than the Maxx2.

I have never said the Xd is 'better sounding', that is a personal assessment, unless you can show that, in level matched blind tests, most people prefer one product over another. I keep my arguments to objective performance, and simply pointing out particular areas where the Xd measures better, partly to mostly because of DSP.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #168 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 01:33 PM
Advanced Member
 
RBFC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Albuquerque, NM
Posts: 906
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 18 Post(s)
Liked: 20
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbius View Post

John,

That's why I said the "original" Apogee in my previous post.

There's a guy named "Graz" in Australia who has been making replacement ribbons
for Apogee speakers that has acquired the rights to the Apogee name a couple years
ago. The "Definitive" and the "Synergy" are his speakers.

Neither the "Definitive" nor the "Synergy" is a product of the design efforts of original
Apogee founders Jason Bloom and Leo Spiegel. The original Apogee company
was acquired by a Canadian company in the '90s; and they essentially let the company
die:

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

Jason Bloom unfortunately died after falling off a ladder several years ago.


I achieved very good results with the full-range Apogee ribbons using the active crossover and 4 Krell monoblock amplifiers. There were some problems in the lower bass with that model (the Apogee Grand, the $80K flagship that followed, incorporated a dynamic subwoofer with the 3-way ribbon design) and ribbon excursion, however.

I'm sad about Jason, as we were good acquaintances.

Lee

B&W 801D (Left,Right), B&W HTM1D (center), B&W CWM8180 x 3 (6.1 surround), JL Audio F113 x 2 (subwoofers), Krell Foundation pre-pro, Krell EV403 (front 3 channels), Krell S1500/3 (rear 3 channels), OPPO 105D (Blu-ray, SACD, DVD-A), Calyx Audio DAC24/192, MacMini w/ 2TB drive (server), Purist Audio interconnects & speaker cables, Pioneer PRO-HD1540 plasma 60"
RBFC is online now  
post #169 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 01:33 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbius View Post

That's why I said the "original" Apogee in my previous post.

I understand, but you can't take ribbons which don't behave pistonically, and translate that to all types of drivers. Pistonic drivers have precious little 'sound' blend with other pistonic drivers when used within their best operating range.

Well done DSP crossovers and impulse response correction can be of benefit with essentially any speakers if used properly. BUT the greatest benefit will be with proportionally sized pistonic drivers sealed within an acoustically benign cabinet. The Revel Studio2 is a near perfect example, less the ported woofer design, of the type of speaker that would benefit most from DEQX. The primary 'color' of the drivers is shifted into a range beyond the crossover point, and then filtered out so that there is no energy going to the cone where it might excite resonances. Obviously a perfectly rigid cone would be best, but it doesn't exist, so all we can do is pick a cone that behaves *better* within the used bandwidth, then cut out sharply the areas where it behaves worse.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #170 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 01:34 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Morbius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Livermore, CA USA
Posts: 4,728
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by AndreYew View Post

First, Keith Howard was not talking about crossover filters, and JA and Kal both had a hard time identifying the ringing filters on his blind test. I think it would reasonable to think that ringing artifacts are fairly subtle at best after reading that article.

Second, the Apogee comparison is not appropriate given that they were using analog crossovers, which have lots of artifacts as you increase steepness, and they were trying to combine two very different radiators: a dipolar ribbon and an omni woofer.

Andre,

NO - Leo Spiegel was NOT attempting to combine a dipole and an omni. This interview
was on the design of the Apogee Stage - which is a ribbon tweeter and ribbon woofer.
[Later on Apogee mated the two-way Stage with a omni woofer and called it the
"MiniGrand". But the speaker in question in the interview is the Stage which has
two dipole ribbon drivers.]

My argument is twofold. One is with steep filters in general because of the discontinuity
in radiation pattern. The filter in that case can be either analog or digital.

The other is the pre- and post-ringing that one can get with a digital filter.
The ringing of the Xd is something that I heard when we demoed the Xd at OB's house.

In comparison to the resident Lamm-driven Wilson X-2s; transients - in particular the
crash of cymbals was "smeared" and "overhung" on the Xd in direct comparison to a
very crisp "cymbal-like" sound from the resident Wilsons.

The Wilsons with OB's fine front-end electronics gave a very convincing illusion of a
"you are there" sound; while the Xd's seemed to call attention to the fact that they were
a reproduction.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
Morbius is offline  
post #171 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 01:48 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Morbius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Livermore, CA USA
Posts: 4,728
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

I understand, but you can't take ribbons which don't behave pistonically, and translate that to all types of drivers. Pistonic drivers have precious little 'sound' blend with other pistonic drivers when used within their best operating range.

John,

It doesn't matter whether the drivers are "pistonic" - besides that is only an approximation
anyway - true drivers are really not pistonic.

The relevant physics here is "antenna' theory - and loudspeaker drivers are "antennas".

Suppose we have a speaker like the Xd satellite - with a 5" cone and a 1" dome - or
whatever the Xd has. Suppose "fc" is the crossover frequency and the crossover is
very steep - so the range in which the two drivers overlap is very narrow, if not zero.

A frequencies just below fc; the 5" cone is doing the radiating - and the radiation pattern
is that of whatever wavelength corresponds to frequency fc being radiated with a 5"
antenna. The size of the antenna vis-a-vis the size of the wavelength determines the
radiation pattern.

Now we increase the frequency slightly to get us above fc into the tweeter passband.
The frequency is not only slightly above fc - so the frequency hasn't changed much -
but it is enough to put us into the tweeter's passband.

Now we have a 1" antenna radiating a wavelenght that is only marginally different from
the one the woofer was radiating. However, the size of the antenna has changed
suddenly from 5" to 1"; and hence the radiation pattern suddenly became more
isotropic with a slight increase in frequency.

Real musical instruments don't do that - they don't change their radiation pattern in the
frequency span of just a few Hertz. It would have been better to blend the output of
the drivers so that the transition from the 5" radiation pattern to the more isotropic
pattern of the 1" driver took place over a greater span of frequencies so that it was
less noticeable.

A sharp crossover between two different sized drivers is going to give a sharp transition
in the radiation pattern as a function of frequency at the crossover. Real instruments
don't have sharp transitions in radiation pattern. The artificiality of this transition calls
attention to the fact that the reproduction is an artificial one.

Again - Mother Nature doesn't have these sharp transitions in radiation patterns - why
would one try to emulate Nature with a characteristic that Nature doesn't have?

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
Morbius is offline  
post #172 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 01:49 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbius View Post


My argument is twofold. One is with steep filters in general because of the discontinuity
in radiation pattern. The filter in that case can be either analog or digital.

Actually, this is ameliorated with DEQX. You can see this with the Xd measurements, both horizontally and vertically. The tweeter is crossed down low at 2kHz where the midrange is just beginning to lose its dispersion. Therefore, steep crossovers, used properly, give you *less* discontinuity in dispersion. But, of course, DSP doesn't *force* you to use steep crossovers, it simply gives you the *option* of using them.
Quote:



The other is the pre- and post-ringing that one can get with a digital filter.
The ringing of the Xd is something that I heard when we demoed the Xd at OB's house.

Like Andre, I'm not sure that's what you were hearing. I think that's what you think you were hearing. It's okay not to like them if it makes you feel better.
Quote:



In comparison to the resident Lamm-driven Wilson X-2s; transients - in particular the
crash of cymbals was "smeared" and "overhung" on the Xd in direct comparison to a
very crisp "cymbal-like" sound from the resident Wilsons.

Well, 'crisp' is certainly a staple of Wilson tweeters, though others just say 'bright' or 'aggressive'. In any case, in response to quibbles from reviewers, the NHT's treble filter attributes were altered to make the treble more flat and less rolled off. I believe that they felt that leaving the tweeter operate with a slight rolloff would make for a more forgiving, better all around speaker, but many audiophiles felt the were too rolled off and so they simply made the correction, much to the delight of those that heard the before and after. As a drummer, I can say I haven't heard a treble that I like better than Xd, though I thought the B&W Diamond was better in some ways, not quite as good in others.
Quote:



The Wilsons with OB's fine front-end electronics gave a very convincing illusion of a
"you are there" sound; while the Xd's seemed to call attention to the fact that they were
a reproduction.

I can tell you with an extremely high degree of certainty that DEQXed X2s would sound better than passive ones. Maybe better even with just a Behringer.

John
Alimentall is offline  
post #173 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 01:51 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Morbius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Livermore, CA USA
Posts: 4,728
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

Well done DSP crossovers and impulse response correction can be of benefit with essentially any speakers if used properly.

John,

I agree with that - with the proviso that the phrase "used properly" means that steep
crosssovers are to be avoided.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
Morbius is offline  
post #174 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 01:53 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Morbius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Livermore, CA USA
Posts: 4,728
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

I can tell you with an extremely high degree of certainty that DEQXed X2s would sound better than passive ones. Maybe better even with just a Behringer.

John,

Unless you have actually done the experiment and put a DEQX on the X-2;
your assurances are meaningless.

If you want to make that claim to a scientist - you have to do the experiment.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
Morbius is offline  
post #175 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 02:00 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Morbius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Livermore, CA USA
Posts: 4,728
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by syswei View Post

Reverence?

Just more Alimentall-twisted interpretations. I think Dennis' words speak for themselves. No one here needs your twisting, John.

Digital filtering is a powerful technique and you can do a lot with it.

However, like any technology it can be mis-used.

Steep crossovers are not a virtue in and of themselves. The ideal speaker is not one
in which one has a cadre of independent, decoupled drivers; each handling a given
passband with zero regard to what its neighbor is doing.

Ideally, the response of the system should be continuous in both frequency and in
radiation pattern. Sharp transitions are an anathema to the continuity and smoothness
of the response.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
Morbius is offline  
post #176 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 02:03 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbius View Post

John,

Unless you have actually done the experiment and put a DEQX on the X-2;
your assurances are meaningless.

If you want to make that claim to a scientist - you have to do the experiment.

I'd love to, but I don't think OB will let me touch them. If I had $150K, I'd buy a speaker company. It is very easy to predict a more coherent sound with better off axis performance and a much tighter FR. The Maxx2 was measured in Stereophile as /-8dB. I'm sure adding a decimal point to that would help it sound subjectively better.

Here is the off axis dispersion of the NHT Xd, out to 90 degrees in each direction. The only speaker with smoother and broader off axis dispersion that I've seen measured is the omnidirectional MBL -


John
Alimentall is offline  
post #177 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 02:12 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Morbius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Livermore, CA USA
Posts: 4,728
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

Like Andre, I'm not sure that's what you were hearing. I think that's what you think you were hearing. It's okay not to like them if it makes you feel better.

John,

I had no preconceived notion. I listened to the X-2 and I listened to the Xds.

There was just "something" about the Xds that sounded "un-natural" There was something
about what I was hearing from the Xds that said "You are listening to a reproduction."

The Wilson X-2s were saying "You are listening to the real thing"; and although I knew
I wasn't listening to the real thing - the Wilsons were VERY convincing.

So I listened very critically!! I wanted to know what about the sound from the Xds
was subconsciously tipping me off that they were artificial.

One of the things that I identified was the sound of cymbals. The Wilson X-2 produced
the correct transient sounds that a cymbal makes. You hear the initial "click" of the
drumsticks hitting the metal. You hear a "ringing" as the sound waves in the cymbal
propagate outward from the hit site; but have not yet "discovered the boundary of the
cymbal" You hear the "shimmering" as the multiple reflections from the edge of the
cymbal are all interacting. The Wilson gives you a cymbal that really sounds like
a cymbal.

The Xds just sort of went "shhh" - and totally missed all this microdynamics that made
the cymbal sound so life-like. The DEQX digital processor in the XdA unit is doing the
temporal integration demanded by the digital approximation of the filter by summing
together the output of the various "taps" along the unit's delay chain.

That summation and averaging is what smears the transients that I heard so crisply
on the Wilsons. I could hear the "smeariing" and also understand WHY the digital
processing was giving me the smearing.

The frequency and temporal responses of a filter are not independent. [ They are
Fourier Transforms of each other ] If you are not judicious in your use of the DSP
in the frequency domain [ like demanding steepness in the filter ], you can very well
screw up the temporal response.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
Morbius is offline  
post #178 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 02:22 PM
AVS Special Member
 
Morbius's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Livermore, CA USA
Posts: 4,728
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 13
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post


Here is the off axis dispersion of the NHT Xd, out to 90 degrees in each direction. The only speaker with smoother and broader off axis dispersion that I've seen measured is the omnidirectional MBL -

John,

The problem is that you can mess up the temporal response when you over-constrain
the frequency response.

As an analogy; you can build a car that has great gas mileage - if you build it out of
balsa wood - so that it has terrible crash survivability.

You can also build a tank that is great in crashes - but gets horrible gas mileage.

Good engineering design is that art of compromise - and the optimal design rarely, if
ever lies at the limits.

You are showing me the mileage figures over and over again for the balsa wood car;
and totally MISSING the point that my objection is to the poor crash performance.

The Xd graphs just show that it was designed to get good frequency response - but
the Xd is a "one trick pony". It does one thing well - but not the pantheon of multiple
characteristics that I expect in a great speaker.

The Xd is like the amps and receivers of the '70s that had tons of negative feedback
so that they would measure well on a THD benchmark when fed a 1 kHz sinewave.
Yes - those amps really "locked in" on that 1 kHz sinewave and got great THD metrics.

But music is not a 1 kHz sinewave - and those amps were terrible on music.

You can show me the THD metrics of those amps all day - but that is not going to
convince me that they were good amps. It just showed that the engineers designed
the product to the test; so they would measure well, and thus make good ad copy.

The Xd evidently was designed with the same philosophy in mind.

Dr. Gregory Greenman
Physicist
Morbius is offline  
post #179 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 02:23 PM
 
faberryman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 546
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Alimentall View Post

I have never said the Xd is 'better sounding', that is a personal assessment, unless you can show that, in level matched blind tests, most people prefer one product over another. I keep my arguments to objective performance, and simply pointing out particular areas where the Xd measures better, partly to mostly because of DSP.

Then you need to be perfectly clear that when you say things like "easily outperforms" you really just mean measures better if you actually measured them or would theoretically measure better if you did not measure them. As you admitted, while you might eliminate a speaker on the basis of poor measurements, you would not buy a speaker based on measurements alone. Therefore all the pie in the sky about DEQX doesn't mean much unless you are actually comparing two speakers in a listening room. You may say one "performs better" but unless it sounds better, all the measurements in the world won't do you a bit of good. If you say that you are keeping your arguments about objective performance, then limit them to instances when actual measurements exist and are readily available. Otherwise, they are not objective arguments, they are merely theoretical arguments or opinion.
faberryman is offline  
post #180 of 481 Old 02-20-2009, 02:29 PM - Thread Starter
AVS Addicted Member
 
Alimentall's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Home by the sea
Posts: 14,157
Mentioned: 0 Post(s)
Tagged: 0 Thread(s)
Quoted: 0 Post(s)
Liked: 10
Quote:
Originally Posted by Morbius View Post

John,

I agree with that - with the proviso that the phrase "used properly" means that steep
crosssovers are to be avoided.

Well, I think it just depends on the subjective and objective results. If steeper crossovers work better, maximizing multiple parameters while only being worse in one, so be it.

John
Alimentall is offline  
Closed Thread Ultra Hi-End HT Gear ($20,000+)

User Tag List

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


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