HT: Has anyone ever moved from high sensitivity speakers BACK to low sensitivity? - Page 22

If the speakers have good polars/sound power, lateral reflections aren't necessarily a bad thing though, as proven in Olive and Toole's case studies. It improves "apparent source width" and imaging. This doesn't apply to speakers with poor polars/sound power, though.

Thanks for the comment on the speakers, but those are not mine. These are mine:

Right. Wide dispersion is not as bad as wide dispersion combined with tonal imbalance.

Absolutely. I have loved getting to know how to work my DCX. So you're saying it is a GOOD thing that I have xt32, the DCX, and an SMS-1? Haha. Overkill, perhaps, just want to try all options


Even more plitty!!!!

Please go back and read the GTG thread again, as we clearly pointed out that Jeff chose to run his speakers full range. In case folks don't know, Jeff is the designer, and he attended the GTG (he's an awesome dude). I was planning on playing his speakers first paired with dual LMS subs, but when the time came he say nah, just go ahead and run them full range. Had we all realized this would cause such controversy we would not have run them full range and I would have insisted they get paired with a sub or two. With that said, it was known to the attendees months ahead of time that we were going to run full range only. Jeff chose the speakers he wanted to bring to our full range speaker GTG, and he was cool enough to bring them. Before the GTG I spoke to him through PM and said I wouldn't mind making an exception for his stuff and run them with subs, but again, in the end he chose not to. In retrospect I should have paid more attention to the JTR speakers F3 and had Jeff bring a Cap or two to use with them, but he never mentioned it and we didn't think about it. The deck was not intentionally stacked against JTR, and I gave Jeff a chance to run his speakers first with the subs, but he decided to just go full range. Once again you need to get your facts straight.

Are you done complaining about this now, or should we start our own thread in which you can huff and puff some more?

Whether Jeff gave it the go ahead or not, running JTR's without a sub is simply ridiculous. They weren't designed to be used that way, plain and simple.

That it right there and nothing more. Nothing to do with brand name.
No huff No puff. Just running a speaker full range that is designed to crossover to a sub will equal the negative impression one has. Crossedover correctly to a sub will sound completely different and not have the flaws thats heard when ran full range.
Lets FIND some common ground here please. this can be a mutually beneficial discussion if we try.
Thanks
Chris

Missed this before. It is refreshing to see this on their website. If only all manufacturers would do this, even if they aren't performed by third parties.

So you're calling Jeff ridiculous then? It was his decision, so...

Common ground would be nice, but the attacks keep coming even though I agreed they should have been run with subs. Folks seem to gloss over the fact that Jeff ultimately chose not to go this route, and that later at the even we did cross them to subwoofers (movies were awesome).

FWIW, I have not read through the whole g2g thread in some time, and I understand both points being made here, but as it has been said, you can't neuter ANY speaker's response, and then expect it to sound good with other speakers that are running full band. I know Jeff said run it full band, but as Nuance said, check the f3 and f6 of his offerings, they are between 63 and 76hz IIRC, the rolloff itself is not surmountable in this case, they would never keep up, and making them try, would make response suffer. from 80hz up, the JTR's can throw blows with the best of the best, still i think no one is disagreeing here.

Just take a look at all the material from 20hz up to 70-80hz that a speaker would lose out on in the event it was either crossed at 80hz, or if its natural rolloff happened around the same.

The whole point here that the subjective opinions should be taken in that light. It was an AV get together and is seems everyone had a good time. Hopefully it wasn't meant to be a critical listening session as there were many issues with setup and execution. It's nice that they were able to get so many products together and could give folks a taste of what they might sound like but it has hardly definitive as I assume it wasn't meant to be. The unusual mix of products made it difficult render a judgement regarding sound quality or capability but subjective comments were given.

My issue with this (and I was and called an attacker for stating my opinion) was that while most of the subjective comments were thoughtful and respectful, some were very disrespectful especially considering the specific conditions. I have talked to Jeff about this and because he is a "good guy", he really wasn't bothered by the rude and ignorant critiques of his speakers (my words, not his). That is what tarnished what was a fun day for a few hobbiests and industry professionals and any negative aftermath was mostly generated by the rudeness (thinly disguised as honesty) of those comments. IMHO
Edited by RMK! - 11/30/12 at 9:05am

I'll take a shot at this. There are considerations other than frequency domain performance when evaluating a speaker system.

The great majority of HE speakers use compression drivers for the mids and highs while typical direct radiators use some combination of cones, domes, planars/ribbons and ring radiators.

This is from the Pi Speakers Whitepaper (which I found very interesting and informative) that zheka likes to reference:

"An important requirement for the constant directivity crossover is top-octave compensation. As seen earlier, the power response of a compression driver falls off at 6dB/octave above mass-rolloff. In a typical 1” exit compression driver, this starts around 4kHz, so top-octave compensation generally adds about 12dB boost total."

What this tells me is that the typical compression driver will have poor spectral decay performance because of its high mass. A ribbon on the other hand is intrinsically low mass and will have far superior performance in this area:

http://www.alconsaudio.com/site/cinema/pro-ribbon-vs-compression-driver.html

The waterfall plot of the Raal RAAL 70-20XR (along with a good dome) is shown about half way into this document on its use in the Ascend Sierra Tower:

http://www.ascendacoustics.com/pages/products/speakers/SRT/Ascend%20Sierra%20Ribbon%20Tower.pdf

I could be wrong, but I believe spectral decay performance is a major factor why certain people prefer direct radiator designs vice HE designs. On average, their performance in this area is just better. You can listen at lower levels and still feel like you are not missing information. CD performance in this area may be improved by using extremely light and strong diaphragm materials (e.g. beryllium) but the cost becomes prohibitive unless the speaker is designed to a high price point. For example, I believe a TAD CD of this type goes for $2K for a single driver.

In addition, the CD in the great majority of cases is horn/waveguide loaded. I won't go into this subject except to say that the direct radiator adherents may also be basing their dislike of HE designs on hearing ones with poor horn/waveguide design. Wayne Parnham's paper does a good job of explaining why certain horn geometries sound the way they do. If you believe Earl Geddes, an oblate spheroid geometry and open cell foam placed in the mouth are required to achieve the best waveguide performance. Also, if a speaker uses a conventional horn design, the drivers will usually not be time aligned without the use of an active crossover (Danley's Synergy Horns excepted). This will distort the image somewhat especially in a folded horn design.

Every designer makes tradeoffs based on the requirements for the market segment and price point that he is targeting. Most HE designs are targeted for, or have their genesis from, professional sound reinforcement which imposes a set of requirements that a design must meet to function in that environment (high efficiency, high power handling, rugged construction). The home use market segment imposes a different set of requirements (low level clarity, imaging, aesthetics). The tradeoffs that a designer makes will be different in these markets.

Ultimately, each individual customer has his/her own set of threshold and objective requirements for an audio system. Any system that does not meet the threshold requirements will not make the cut. An example of this is that one person may enjoy movies with lots of special effects and be in the market for a HT theater system that can play at reference level or beyond. Any speaker that cannot meet this threshold requirement is rejected out of hand. Another person may be looking for a system for both HT and music, loves film scores and watches the majority of his movies with his spouse. This person's threshold requirement might be the ability to provide a satisfying listening experience at lower volumes.

The customer then rates the systems that meet the threshold requirements against the his/her objective requirements. The customer weights these objective requirements based on his/her sonic value system. This process will almost always be informal. A better approach would be to formalize the process and apply numerical weightings to these requirements and then score a system's ability to approach or exceed the objective requirements (i.e. perform a trade study).

So the statement that a good speaker is a good speaker for all applications is simply not true in a lot of cases. Using an extreme example, a formula 1 design and a top fuel dragster design may both be top performers, but they each would be completely inadequate in the other's domain.

In the end, what each person values sonically is different and will result in different system choices. If a person's system meets or exceeds their requirements and brings them enjoyment, more power to 'em.

Cheers,
OldMovieNut

If Jeff had the option to run the speakers with subs, but chose instead not to do so, that would be a ridiculous decision IMO.

It is ridiculous to consider an evaluation of the sound of the JTR's without being crossed to a sub to be of any serious value. It's about as useful as judging a speaker without it's tweeter hooked up.

Maybe he just did it for fun (in the spirit of the day). To me he seems like a "whatever let's give it a try" sort of person. Again, he thought it was a fun day and he enjoyed (and I'll quote him here) "listening to some great speakers". I think the owners of his products took more umbrage than he did regarding this and there is a lesson there ... so let's give it a rest.

RMK
I agree. After rereading posted reviews from that GTG(as I was directed to do)
Archaea review list on the Sounscape 10 is a prime example. He knew something was not right with what he heard so he elected to post nothing on his review list. That is why noone said anything to him. He chose the high road.
Then when I read reviews from others that heard the same flawed session talk about how wonderful what they heard was it seems that they had thier minds already made up. That fine but how could it be so obvious to him and a few others while some did not notice. That is just one of many reasons why some feel the deck was stacked.
This is a pointless post becuase those who know KNOW, while those who don't would rather be negative instead of simply saying nothing.
Audio is supposed to be fun not depressing but after rereading that GTG thread I am SAD.
I hope and wish everyone gets thier DREAM speakers.
I am done
Chris

I can't argue with that. I also missed your post earlier, and I think you and I are simply suffering from a misunderstanding of posts here on the forums. Sometime's it is very hard to convey what you're thinking/really mean into typed sentences. How about you and I just start over and forget the misunderstandings, eh?

I disagree with that last part, but I see your point. First of all, someone else's opinion of a speaker should never be the bases of a purchasing decision. RMK is correct that the event was focused on having a good time; the rest was just a bonus. You need to listen to a speaker before you buy it. Period.

Concerning Jeff's decision, he's a good guy, and I invited him because I've always liked how he handles himself and his business, but he and I both knew his speakers were designed to be paired with a sub(s). He agreed to attend anyway, and it's because he simply that cool of a guy. Period. He probably knew he'd be at a disadvantage, and he came anyway. That says a lot about his character IMO. As mentioned in the GTG thread, I plan to pay his shop a visit for a proper audition, especially considering he has a new speaker.

Thank you. I don't disagree with what you just said, and I regret Jeff's speakers being at a disadvantage. By the way, you were the one that brought up JTR, so... Next time you should really attend - you can help ensure something like running the JTR's full range never happens again, or correct our level matching methods so the JTR's weren't louder than the rest. The more experience the better!

Exactly.

To answer your question (bolded), it is because Jonathan sat on the floor directly in front of the left speaker (and remained there). He was 6-7 feet from the speaker. Being in such a unique position allowed him to A) hear flaws easier, and B) not hear what he was intended to because he wasn't sitting at ear level, far enough away and between the two speakers. Since the flaw just happened to occur only on the left-hand side (where he was sitting), he was able to pick it out easier. And then, of course, some people just don't know what distortion sounds like, so they likely never heard it at all. Not everyone is as experience as the next guy.

Shouldn't we take the GTG talk somewhere else? It really has nothing to do with the OP.

P.S. To quote Mark Seaton;

Edited by Nuance - 11/30/12 at 9:57am

OMN,

Thank you very much for that post, it was an excellent run down and point of view. Plain and simple, Opinions are like armpits, everyone has them and sometimes they may stink. Also, I lop top fuel, so that analogy will be a good one for the memory banks

I find it hard listening to a lot of this conversation due to the fact that I have heard a lot of great speakers on both "sides" of the isle and feel too strongly about how some benefit in areas that others don't. All too often when people post subjective opinions on here about how a pair of speakers sound, they don't go into enough detail and research to actually look into WHY they didn't think they sounded good. More often than not, it is due to the fact they were improperly integrated to the system i.e., crossover was set at a bad spot, phase/delay issues, placement problems with SBIR or comb filtering (this could be in the design at times too obviously), and all kinds of other issues that they immediately dismiss as the speaker is just not for them. In my theater design I have played with all different types of alignments, and speaker styles, so at some point, some day, I will be able to say, "I have had a pair of those before, this is how I thought they did compared to what you have." Knowledge is paramount and personal experience, while different between every single one of us here will inevitably play bias in our conversations hereafter, as long as AVS is around. This is "Science" forum and those like OldMovieNut that are posting some good informative reads help propel this conversation to new levels. Let's not make this about any personal vendetta's. Thanks dudes.


I see a WHOLE lot of good points being made here in this thread, and I have been here from pretty much the get-go, so I am glad there is still some good progress in the discussion!!

Wow, OldMovieNut - your post was very good and informative. Thank you for that.

I agree too or +1
Excellent informing post.
If I were clever I would have said that.
Thank you OMN
Chris

Done and I agree, life's too short ...

The problem with being quoted is I'm forced to re-read the stuff I write and all the typos and grammatical errors jump out at me . I want to be a better writer in my next life ...

Interesting. I have not considered this before. I suspect that in a typical room at the LP the advantage of shorter decay is probably moot. I guess I have some reading to do

I agree. That's why I find exceptions to this rule so valuable. I think objectively 4Pi is at least very competent with music, HT and even PA. And, subjectively, it is the best speaker I ever listened to in my room, regardless of the program material.
Edited by zheka - 11/30/12 at 11:57am

I can't specifically tell you if the shorter decay is the reason, but the two tweeters used in the Ascend measurements, but I have heard both tweeters in the same room, and the RAAL tweeter definitely presents more detail, in a "typical" room.

No matter what room you are in, if you start with less decay, less decay reaches your ears.

This stands to reason. But if you were to measure spectral decay in room, you would probably find that 0.3 ms difference between the tweeter and the ribbon in Sierra Towers is insignificant compared to the influence of the room. So the explanation for the difference in sound may have to be found elsewhere.

But I maybe way wrong here. At least this is a measurable difference unlike the HOM explanation Geddes is pushing.
Edited by zheka - 11/30/12 at 12:34pm

Maybe...but that lack of decay at the source also means that there is less for the room to interact with from the beginning.

Like I said, I don't know for sure, but tough to explain the perception of more detail otherwise.

I would also bet that in a room, the decay for higher frequencies of a tweeter are much less of issue(or maybe even non-existent) when compared to mids/bass.

A very slight bump-up in response somewhere in the upper mids and/or highs can easily be interpreted as more detail. It doesn't even take a large change.

you maybe right. I have no first hand experience with this

Understood. I am pretty sure this is not the case with the RAAL.

On this particular speaker, the midrange is very detailed with either tweeter....the highs are more detailed with the RAAL, and not quite as forward. The RAAL tweeter is quite interesting/remarkable.

and maybe I'm not....skepticism is good.

I didnt realize they were so plug and play. Blocking is one way to avoid your having to deal with subsequent research that essentially overturns the Klipsch paper that you seem to be fond of trotting out as somehow definitive. So much for science if it happens to disagree with personal notions.