Comments on Linn Artikulat system? - Page 3

John,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Greg,

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

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

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

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

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

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

That's my two cents.

An "echo" isn't acausal. What we also don't know is how audible it is subjectively. It obviously isn't dramatic because it only seems to be "heard" by people who are aware of it. If I mislead you and told you I replaced your high-end cables with 24 gauge cables, I bet you'd "hear" the sound collapse too. John Dunlavy used to do that to "golden-eared audiophiles" and embarrass the hell out of them.
Just after? Ringing after is good, but before is bad? I fail to see much of a difference in the context of music. AND, it has lots of vertical domain problems, far more than the Xd. As I said, you can easily judge the relative "damage" by this pre-ringing by listening to Xd from above where there would be almost no cancellation of the phenomenon. Then listen to *any* other speaker from the same point. Xd still sounds fantastic from above, pre-ringing and all. I know no other forward firing speaker that can pull this off like Xd. That is called good engineering.
Ah, so if Keith Howard (?) just states it, it's fact? Has anyone done any research into it? Has anyone actually tested the relative damage done by an analog crossover versus a digital one? All I know is that every time I've removed a stock crossover and replaced it with DEQX, the performance upgrade, "ringing" and all, is dramatic. I have more experience with this than you do, that's why all this digital paranoia doesn't affect me.
Yeah, well show me a Wilson that respects accuracy. Or dispersion. Or time/phase. Or the negative effects of porting.
That's hilarious. Analog crossovers don't "crap-up" temporal response?!? Gimme a break!!! They're almost always dramatically worse than a digital crossover with respect to time/phase!
I beg to differ. Meridians are the first speaker that showed me what "microdynamics" are. They were "quieter" and reached far deeper into the music that other high-end speakers. Xds are so "quiet" that you can hear all the things going on in your room *even* at very high volumes. That's because they start and stop faster between notes while other speakers mask room noises.
NO! It's exactly the opposite! That's the point. Most high-end speakers can only do one or two things well! Some, like Thiel do time/phase, but are fatiguing. Others like Wilson are low distortion (aka detailed), but not accurate. Others are tonally accurate. Still others have mini-monitor imaging. Others have a big, spacious sound or a wide sweetspot. Others can do deep bass and dynamics.

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

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

John,

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


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

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


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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

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

Hahahaha! You kill me. Acausal means "without cause"!!! How can a sound "cause" something that is "acausal"?!?
How does this translate into subjectively bad?
So, higher cone resonances, motor distortion, poor dispersion, etc don't tip you off? IOW, a pound of analog distortion is okay, but an ounce of digital distortion is objectionable? Pretty selective!
Yes, but you're capable of ignoring all the artifacts in a typical high-end speaker. I'm not. It drives me crazy, especially when it costs $10s of thousands to get that much distortion.
Neither trumps my real world experience. I play with this stuff.
I thought all digital crossovers ring?
Hah! You wish
Yes, but that isn't so with Xd. They behave as a nearly ideal point source. NHT can choose *any* slope they want, but 110dB/octave obviously was the best balance where the effects of ringing started to equalize with the beneficial aspects of the steep crossovers. Maybe they can have a shallow slope model *just* for you so you'll stop complaining and whining.
Ribbons? Well behaved? Uh-huh!
I'm sorry, did you just call the SEAS Excel "mediocre"?!? WTF? I guarantee they're *far* better behaved between 100Hz and 3000Hz where they're used than what Wilson uses.
Ah, because an ex-pharmaceutical sales person would obviously understand digital better than actual electronic engineers at NHT and DEQX

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

John,

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

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

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

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


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


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

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

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

and stated:


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

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




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

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

Greg,

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

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

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

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

Says who? You're saying that the pre-ringing is bad because it's unrelated to the music, but it is and, apparently, pretty easily masked, unlike many other issues.
As I understand it, all exhibit ringing to a certain extent. In any case, reading through the subjective part of the Stereophile article, it shows that these filter problems are barely audible if at all. They certainly sound like they were struggling to hear any bad effects and these are guys that think they can hear when a fly lands on their speaker cables!!!
Didn't say they couldn't. Apogees are subjectively very good speakers, warts and all. Ribbons are hardly free from issues, however.

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

:d

romanesq,

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

John,

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

John,

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



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

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

from the article:


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Weasel wording"?!? So, now you're calling John Atkinson a "weasel"? Because he said almost exactly the same thing.
I sit on axis! Most everyone is going to be within a few degrees of horizontal axis. What the heck are you talking about? Talk about "weasel wording"......
Again, what the heck are you talking about? Of course you can. The horizontal axis is about 33" off the ground. Everywhere in the room. If you're on axis with one, by definition, you're on axis with the other.
Wow, are you really this slow?
"Almost entirely cancelled" is equal to "not entirely cancelled" and therefore measureable, but not necessarily audible or objectionable. Here's what John Atkinson said:

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

Perhaps you prefer his wording? The first two measurable ripples almost exactly cancelled, to the point of barely registering on the graph. The third, biggest ripple, while remaining visible, was a mere fraction of what the non-combined ripples were.
Ah, well in that case, let's assume the audibility of *everything* that is measurable. Then you've got *huge* problems with even a big Wilson speaker. You've half a dozen problems in the typical $50K+ speaker that would certainly dwarf the pre-ringing issue. By that standard, the Wilson Maxx 2 and Apogee Divas are so hideously flawed, they should be shot and tossed overboard. Yet you manage to survive their horrendous sonic behaviors. +/-5 or 10dB? Poor horizontal dispersion? Even worse vertical dispersion? Cone resonance? Motor distortion? Spectral decay? It's all measurable and plenty audible (but also somewhat avoidable).
Perhaps, but you'll also hear a much great decrease in coloration, distortion, poor integration, poor dispersion, etc, etc, etc that makes you forget all that.
Timbre? The Wilson's aren't even *close* to the Xd in quality of timbre. Unless you consider +/-8db to be more faithful than +/- 1.25dB.
I'm not hemming and hawing, I'm discussing actual reality, not fantasy or "math".
I believe in actual quality and objective performance. Nothing more, nothing less. Excuses walk. You want to cling desperately to old paradigms, that's fine, but most people will listen with an open mind. Not everyone will like, but many, if not most will. Heck, even if a perfect speaker existed, half the population wouldn't like it at all.

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

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

Are we supposed to be reading this stuff?

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

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

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

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

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

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

John,

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

Greg,

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

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

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

John,

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

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

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

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

We did the experiment - you haven't.

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

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

romanesq,

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

http://archive2.avsforum.com/avs-vb/...0&page=2&pp=30

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You forgot to say "na na na na na".

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

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

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

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

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

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

I never expected you do, you're a biased bunch, I'll say that. BUT, you didn't notice that the NHTs have much broader, more realistic dispersion? Or that they don't comb filter when you move up or down? Did you read the review of Wilsons where they said just how finicky about where you sit? Are real instruments finicky like that? Nope. Xd reproduces sound more like a real instrument produces sound.
Actually, I have, just against different speakers. They've certainly embarrassed a whole host of speakers side by side, from about $8000/pr up to $22K/pr. Linns, B&Ws, Genesis, Meridians, Focals. Not as "exciting" as some, but far more realistic and natural, something about which many "high-enders" don't think. It's all "dynamics!" and "detail!" and "power!". IOW, many audiophiles want a hyped version of reality, rather than reality itself. And those folks wouldn't like a perfect speaker if it actually existed.
Oh, big whoop. You subjectively preferred a $300K system to a $6K system (prior to the filter upgrades and with only one sub). Wow!!! But think of it this way, most people think "okay, this is $300K and this is $6K - therefore, every difference I hear *must* be in favor of the more expensive system". That is *exactly* how most people think. That's how they've been trained to think by the industry, reviewers, dealers, etc. Bottom line, if you didn't hear one or two areas that Xd did better than the Wilsons, you are too biased to know a hot dog from a prime rib. I know where the Wilsons would do better, but I also know where they'd do worse *and* I'd know it when I heard it.

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

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

At least the Rockport Antares measures well.

John,

Again you can't say that!!!

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

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

Vinyl has the BANDWIDTH to handle a 48 kHz signal.

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

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

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

John,

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


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

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

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

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

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

Thank You so much.