Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
MINe 109
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

"Curvilinear"? Isn't that ML's way of trying to be more
Ferstler-approved by diddling the dispersion?


Actually, unless the diaphragm is changing size as it moves
back and forth, the curved shape will not allow for any
better dispersion than what we would get with a flat
diaphragm.


Poor deluded ML.

However, as best I can tell, those diaphragms are solidly
attached at the edges and therefore have to flex as they
move back and forth. This would almost certainly result in
resonances at some frequencies. This is why that whenever a
system like that is measured for power response the curve
will exhibit a large degree of choppiness. Combine this with
the comb-filtering artifacts you will get with any
large-diaphragm driver when it is dealing with short
wavelength frequencies, and it is easy to see why
large-panel systems cannot exhibit smooth frequency
response.


Ah, the myth of electrostatic resonance.

Dipole highs, monopole lows, something's got to give.


This actually has not got much to do with anything. At low
frequencies, all systems tend to radiate in a bipolar or
full circular manner and not as a dipole. Well, you could
get a dipolar response down low with a dipolar woofer
(Carver did this a while back), but the response will roll
off fast below a certain point. Carver compensated with some
huge levels of equalization.


ML's been working on the problem for years without solving it.

I guess you've never heard of Gradient.

Then again, ML isn't Quad.


Nor Magnepan.


Magnepan would be in the same position of the others,
although by using optimized drivers of varying size they
overcome some resonance artifacts. However, the line-source
generated comb-filtering artifacts would remain. Generally,
those are simply perceived as a rolloff above 5 to 8 kHz and
not as anything erratic.

Generally, the earlier Quad models were very directional,
and so the listener had to toe them in and remain pretty
much locked into the sweet spot. (This kind of rigid
listening is not my cup of tea at all.) That directionality
basically resulted in the direct field being dominant at
midrange and treble frequencies, making the speakers perform
like huge headphones.


Agreed. A "problem" with all bipolar speakers.


Especially if you live in an aircraft hangar.


This comment makes no sense whatsoever.


No dipole added depth.

Those who like that kind of somewhat sterile behavior would
obviously prefer such speakers.


I'm one of them.


It's hard to think of a dipole promiscuously splashing sound around as
being sterile.


It is highly directional. Yes, there are delayed front-wall
reflections, but the hugely reduced ceiling/floor and
side-wall reflections tends to make them far less spacious
sounding than wider-dispersion systems. However, the
front-wall reflections, if the systems are pulled out far
enough, will lend a sense of frontal depth to the sound.
However, remember that this is not recorded depth. It is
just a room-generated artifact that usually sounds pleasant.


Pleasant, yes. Wouldn't want any artificially added depth, though. At
least you're admitting they aren't giant headphones.

If Howard knew how to use URLs, he could look at this and follow the
links:

http://user.tninet.se/~vhw129w/mt_au...n/quadpage.htm


Note that while HiFi New rated the ESL-57 as "the greatest
hi-fi product of all time," that rather tweaky magazine is
an English journal and would happily award the prize to one
of their own.


It's just chauvinism? You're crying sour grapes.

As for Ken Kessler, well I think that most of what he says
about anything is bunk. Basically, this article is a typical
tweako "white paper" that does not say much of interest at
all.


You stopped reading at the second paragraph! Too bad, you'd have
recognized a companion spirit. Or is it uninteresting because the
descriptions based on use and listening are different from your
preconceptions?

Plenty of schematics, etc, in the links.

One qualification, however. I will say that the point-source
concept is a good one, but I am not sure that Quad has
pulled it off all that well. There is a lot of electrical
manipulation involved, and arcane stuff like that ought to
have you tweakos wringing your worrisome little hands.


Since you haven't heard them, you have no idea if Quad has achieved
their goals or not.

Please explain how Quad does that "electrical manipulation".

And Quad are anti-tweako, input capacitors aside.

Stephen
  #82   Report Post  
MINe 109
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

I know of some very
knowledgeable listeners who consider headphones to be the
height of realism. I do not hear that kind of ultra-clarity
realism at live performances (I mean that you usually, for
example, do not hear performers breathing at live
performances), but I can see why it will be appealing to
some enthusiasts.


You might hear performers breathing at live performances if you stood
where the mics are.

Stephen
  #87   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Arny Krueger wrote:
wrote:
Scott "big ego, small intellect" Wheeler wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote:
MINe 109 wrote:

"Curvilinear"? Isn't that ML's way of trying to be more
Ferstler-approved by diddling the dispersion?

Actually, unless the diaphragm is changing size as it moves
back and forth, the curved shape will not allow for any
better dispersion than what we would get with a flat
diaphragm.


Guess again dimbulb.


YOU guess again, dimmestbulb: the radius of the outer (front)

grid
is larger than the radius of the inner (rear) grid. Howard is
absolutely correct: the diaphragm *must* be "changing size" in
order for there to be an increase in the horizontal dispersion
(without an increase in distortions). This would require "perfect
elasticity" of the diaphragm material over it's excursion.


Wheeler, without addressing the issue, scrawls:

OK you are as dumb as Ferstler. Congradulations.


Just when it seemed that Middius had taught Scotty to spell, he
upchucks one of these.

Did you "gratuade" high school, dim-dim?


Don't they usually require a High School diploma to enter
hairdresser's school?



I don't know. Never been there. Do they require a degree from a third
tier college to sit on your ass all day in front of a computer while
you sponge off your wife for a living?



BTW, do tell *where* Ferstler is wrong about the dispersion issue.


Indeed.



OK you are just as stupid as the first two losers. Maybe you should go
back and reread what Ferstler said in the first place.





And save the insults for when you are standing in front of a

mirror.

When Scott gets cornered he does the Middius dissemble-matic shuffle,
and starts slinging personal insults far and wide.



This coming from the guy who calls people pedophiles when he gets
buried in an argument about audio.



Scott Wheeler

  #89   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote:
wrote:
Scott "big ego, small intellect" Wheeler wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote:
MINe 109 wrote:

"Curvilinear"? Isn't that ML's way of trying to be more
Ferstler-approved by diddling the dispersion?

Actually, unless the diaphragm is changing size as it moves
back and forth, the curved shape will not allow for any
better dispersion than what we would get with a flat
diaphragm.


Guess again dimbulb.


YOU guess again, dimmestbulb: the radius of the outer (front)

grid
is
larger than the radius of the inner (rear) grid. Howard is

absolutely
correct: the diaphragm *must* be "changing size" in order for

there
to
be an increase in the horizontal dispersion (without an

increase
in
distortions). This would require "perfect elasticity" of the
diaphragm
material over it's excursion.


Wheeler, without addressing the issue, scrawls:

OK you are as dumb as Ferstler. Congradulations.

BTW, do tell *where* Ferstler is wrong about the dispersion

issue.
And
save the insults for when you are standing in front of a mirror.




Not very bright are you? Go back and reread what Ferstler said and

then
figure out why he was being an idiot.


Why don't you reread what Ferstler said. Howard is correct: in order
for there to be an effect on dispersion, the diaphragm must "change
size as it moves back and forth". I know it's difficult for you, but
think about it for a bit. Keep in mind that the front (outer) grid is a
larger radius than the rear (inner) grid. The diaphragm must move
between these grids in order to produce sound. Go get a paper and
pencil and draw it out if you must. Keep at it, eventually, you'll "get
it".

Do you always agree with idiots?

I almost never agree with you. Does that answer your question, idiot?

  #90   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

I know of some very
knowledgeable listeners who consider headphones to be the
height of realism. I do not hear that kind of ultra-clarity
realism at live performances (I mean that you usually, for
example, do not hear performers breathing at live
performances), but I can see why it will be appealing to
some enthusiasts.


You might hear performers breathing at live performances if you stood
where the mics are.

Stephen


Interestingly, this kind of overkill sonic presentation is
what many tweakos consider the height of audio realism. I
wonder how many of you wish you could be suspended from the
microphone racks during live performances.

Howard Ferstler


  #91   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

"Curvilinear"? Isn't that ML's way of trying to be more
Ferstler-approved by diddling the dispersion?


Actually, unless the diaphragm is changing size as it moves
back and forth, the curved shape will not allow for any
better dispersion than what we would get with a flat
diaphragm.


Poor deluded ML.


Trust me. They know how to market speakers.

However, as best I can tell, those diaphragms are solidly
attached at the edges and therefore have to flex as they
move back and forth. This would almost certainly result in
resonances at some frequencies. This is why that whenever a
system like that is measured for power response the curve
will exhibit a large degree of choppiness. Combine this with
the comb-filtering artifacts you will get with any
large-diaphragm driver when it is dealing with short
wavelength frequencies, and it is easy to see why
large-panel systems cannot exhibit smooth frequency
response.


Ah, the myth of electrostatic resonance.


Large areas that are not stiff in relation to their size
will always resonate at certain frequencies, particularly if
there is flexing involved. And flexing is involved, because
the diaphragm is solidly connected at the perimeter.

Dipole highs, monopole lows, something's got to give.


This actually has not got much to do with anything. At low
frequencies, all systems tend to radiate in a bipolar or
full circular manner and not as a dipole. Well, you could
get a dipolar response down low with a dipolar woofer
(Carver did this a while back), but the response will roll
off fast below a certain point. Carver compensated with some
huge levels of equalization.


ML's been working on the problem for years without solving it.


The only way to handle dipolar rolloff in the low bass is to
apply equalization. Supposedly, the Carver solution worked,
but he had to use a number of free-space woofers to deliver
the necessary output.

I guess you've never heard of Gradient.


I have heard of them. I suppose you are going to tell me
that they have a dipolar bass reproducer that is terrific.
Actually, I have reviewed a number of subwoofers produced by
otherwise good companies that were not much more than
outboard woofers. I think that you and a number of other
readers here have yet to hear a really good subwoofer go
cleanly down to the bottom of the bottom octave.

Generally, the earlier Quad models were very directional,
and so the listener had to toe them in and remain pretty
much locked into the sweet spot. (This kind of rigid
listening is not my cup of tea at all.) That directionality
basically resulted in the direct field being dominant at
midrange and treble frequencies, making the speakers perform
like huge headphones.


Agreed. A "problem" with all bipolar speakers.


Especially if you live in an aircraft hangar.


This comment makes no sense whatsoever.


No dipole added depth.


Still does not make sense.

It's hard to think of a dipole promiscuously splashing sound around as
being sterile.


It is highly directional. Yes, there are delayed front-wall
reflections, but the hugely reduced ceiling/floor and
side-wall reflections tends to make them far less spacious
sounding than wider-dispersion systems. However, the
front-wall reflections, if the systems are pulled out far
enough, will lend a sense of frontal depth to the sound.
However, remember that this is not recorded depth. It is
just a room-generated artifact that usually sounds pleasant.


Pleasant, yes. Wouldn't want any artificially added depth, though. At
least you're admitting they aren't giant headphones.


They have a dominant direct-field signal, followed by a
delayed (depending upon the distance to the front wall
behind the speakers) bounce that adds ersatz depth. That can
work fine, and I have no problem with the effect. However,
one needs to have the speakers in a pretty large room to get
them far enough from that front wall. Side-wall reflections
are minimal, which limits the sense of frontal breadth.
Admittedly, many listeners do not like side-wall
reflections. I rather do like them, however.

If Howard knew how to use URLs, he could look at this and follow the
links:

http://user.tninet.se/~vhw129w/mt_au...n/quadpage.htm


Note that while HiFi New rated the ESL-57 as "the greatest
hi-fi product of all time," that rather tweaky magazine is
an English journal and would happily award the prize to one
of their own.


It's just chauvinism? You're crying sour grapes.


Well, they want to support their people.

As for Ken Kessler, well I think that most of what he says
about anything is bunk. Basically, this article is a typical
tweako "white paper" that does not say much of interest at
all.


You stopped reading at the second paragraph! Too bad, you'd have
recognized a companion spirit. Or is it uninteresting because the
descriptions based on use and listening are different from your
preconceptions?


I have read a bit of his other stuff. Mostly bunk.

Plenty of schematics, etc, in the links.


Esoteric embellishments, designed to make the subjective
commentaries seem intelligent.

One qualification, however. I will say that the point-source
concept is a good one, but I am not sure that Quad has
pulled it off all that well. There is a lot of electrical
manipulation involved, and arcane stuff like that ought to
have you tweakos wringing your worrisome little hands.


Since you haven't heard them, you have no idea if Quad has achieved
their goals or not.


There are certain principles involved in the design that
allow one to intellectualize over the possible results. As I
noted, the delay-line manipulations are certainly over the
top and involve a whole lot more electronic contouring than
you will find with typical speakers produced by other
outfits. Certainly, the manipulations are not conducive to
the purist audio philosophy embraced by many tweakos.
However, my guess is that those tweakos have no idea
whatsoever of just how much electronic processing has to go
on when doing the kind of delay-line work the Quads appear
to employ.

Please explain how Quad does that "electrical manipulation".


Hey, the delay-line work that allows the diaphragm area to
simulate a pulsating hemisphere. Man, if you do not think
that the control of those concentric circles by a delay-line
circuit does not involve a HELL of a lot of electrical
manipulation, you are not very sharp.

And Quad are anti-tweako, input capacitors aside.


Sure they are. It is guys like you who have made them into a
tweako icon.

Howard Ferstler
  #92   Report Post  
MINe 109
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

"Curvilinear"? Isn't that ML's way of trying to be more
Ferstler-approved by diddling the dispersion?

Actually, unless the diaphragm is changing size as it moves
back and forth, the curved shape will not allow for any
better dispersion than what we would get with a flat
diaphragm.


Poor deluded ML.


Trust me. They know how to market speakers.


"[2] MartinLogan curvilinear line source electrostatic speakers
output a more focused dispersion pattern which maximizes
the direct sound field and minimizes the reflected sound
fields and room reverberation."

They seem to think it does something.

However, as best I can tell, those diaphragms are solidly
attached at the edges and therefore have to flex as they
move back and forth. This would almost certainly result in
resonances at some frequencies. This is why that whenever a
system like that is measured for power response the curve
will exhibit a large degree of choppiness. Combine this with
the comb-filtering artifacts you will get with any
large-diaphragm driver when it is dealing with short
wavelength frequencies, and it is easy to see why
large-panel systems cannot exhibit smooth frequency
response.


Ah, the myth of electrostatic resonance.


Large areas that are not stiff in relation to their size
will always resonate at certain frequencies, particularly if
there is flexing involved. And flexing is involved, because
the diaphragm is solidly connected at the perimeter.


What if they have negligible mass?

Dipole highs, monopole lows, something's got to give.


This actually has not got much to do with anything. At low
frequencies, all systems tend to radiate in a bipolar or
full circular manner and not as a dipole. Well, you could
get a dipolar response down low with a dipolar woofer
(Carver did this a while back), but the response will roll
off fast below a certain point. Carver compensated with some
huge levels of equalization.


ML's been working on the problem for years without solving it.


The only way to handle dipolar rolloff in the low bass is to
apply equalization. Supposedly, the Carver solution worked,
but he had to use a number of free-space woofers to deliver
the necessary output.


That's more like it.

I guess you've never heard of Gradient.


I have heard of them. I suppose you are going to tell me
that they have a dipolar bass reproducer that is terrific.


I suppose you're going to tell me they don't.

Actually, I have reviewed a number of subwoofers produced by
otherwise good companies that were not much more than
outboard woofers. I think that you and a number of other
readers here have yet to hear a really good subwoofer go
cleanly down to the bottom of the bottom octave.


I know what deep bass sounds like.

Generally, the earlier Quad models were very directional,
and so the listener had to toe them in and remain pretty
much locked into the sweet spot. (This kind of rigid
listening is not my cup of tea at all.) That directionality
basically resulted in the direct field being dominant at
midrange and treble frequencies, making the speakers perform
like huge headphones.


Agreed. A "problem" with all bipolar speakers.


Especially if you live in an aircraft hangar.


This comment makes no sense whatsoever.


No dipole added depth.


Still does not make sense.


No back wall, no reflection.

It's hard to think of a dipole promiscuously splashing sound around as
being sterile.


It is highly directional. Yes, there are delayed front-wall
reflections, but the hugely reduced ceiling/floor and
side-wall reflections tends to make them far less spacious
sounding than wider-dispersion systems. However, the
front-wall reflections, if the systems are pulled out far
enough, will lend a sense of frontal depth to the sound.
However, remember that this is not recorded depth. It is
just a room-generated artifact that usually sounds pleasant.


Pleasant, yes. Wouldn't want any artificially added depth, though. At
least you're admitting they aren't giant headphones.


They have a dominant direct-field signal, followed by a
delayed (depending upon the distance to the front wall
behind the speakers) bounce that adds ersatz depth. That can
work fine, and I have no problem with the effect. However,
one needs to have the speakers in a pretty large room to get
them far enough from that front wall. Side-wall reflections
are minimal, which limits the sense of frontal breadth.
Admittedly, many listeners do not like side-wall
reflections. I rather do like them, however.


Dipoles are often positioned at the side walls. Yes, Quads need some
room, unless you've got a pair of 57s. I've never heard those myself.

If Howard knew how to use URLs, he could look at this and follow the
links:

http://user.tninet.se/~vhw129w/mt_au...n/quadpage.htm


Note that while HiFi New rated the ESL-57 as "the greatest
hi-fi product of all time," that rather tweaky magazine is
an English journal and would happily award the prize to one
of their own.


It's just chauvinism? You're crying sour grapes.


Well, they want to support their people.


Are you suggesting that Quad doesn't deserve the award because they're
British? You appear to be bending over backwards to avoid admitting
you've completely missed out on an audio classic.

As for Ken Kessler, well I think that most of what he says
about anything is bunk. Basically, this article is a typical
tweako "white paper" that does not say much of interest at
all.


You stopped reading at the second paragraph! Too bad, you'd have
recognized a companion spirit. Or is it uninteresting because the
descriptions based on use and listening are different from your
preconceptions?


I have read a bit of his other stuff. Mostly bunk.


There's just the one paragraph. It's even in a different color so you
can see the difference.

Plenty of schematics, etc, in the links.


Esoteric embellishments, designed to make the subjective
commentaries seem intelligent.


http://user.tninet.se/~vhw129w/mt_au...st_of_time.htm

Knock yourself out.

One qualification, however. I will say that the point-source
concept is a good one, but I am not sure that Quad has
pulled it off all that well. There is a lot of electrical
manipulation involved, and arcane stuff like that ought to
have you tweakos wringing your worrisome little hands.


Since you haven't heard them, you have no idea if Quad has achieved
their goals or not.


There are certain principles involved in the design that
allow one to intellectualize over the possible results. As I
noted, the delay-line manipulations are certainly over the
top and involve a whole lot more electronic contouring than
you will find with typical speakers produced by other
outfits. Certainly, the manipulations are not conducive to
the purist audio philosophy embraced by many tweakos.
However, my guess is that those tweakos have no idea
whatsoever of just how much electronic processing has to go
on when doing the kind of delay-line work the Quads appear
to employ.


You have not shown you understand how Quad achieves the necessary delays
nor that there are ill effects associated with the method. Please
explain the "contouring" and how Quad implements it.

Please explain how Quad does that "electrical manipulation".


Hey, the delay-line work that allows the diaphragm area to
simulate a pulsating hemisphere. Man, if you do not think
that the control of those concentric circles by a delay-line
circuit does not involve a HELL of a lot of electrical
manipulation, you are not very sharp.


You can't think of another way to do it? Hint: Peter Walker was v. sharp.

And Quad are anti-tweako, input capacitors aside.


Sure they are. It is guys like you who have made them into a
tweako icon.


That's the point: they're no tweako icon.

http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/416/

"Warning to Purists: Despite certain qualities about the ESL-63 speakers
which you will probably like, Quad equipment is not designed primarily
for audiophiles, but for serious-music (call that "classical") listeners
who play records more for musical enjoyment than for the sound."

1983.
  #93   Report Post  
MINe 109
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

I know of some very
knowledgeable listeners who consider headphones to be the
height of realism. I do not hear that kind of ultra-clarity
realism at live performances (I mean that you usually, for
example, do not hear performers breathing at live
performances), but I can see why it will be appealing to
some enthusiasts.


You might hear performers breathing at live performances if you stood
where the mics are.

Stephen


Interestingly, this kind of overkill sonic presentation is
what many tweakos consider the height of audio realism. I
wonder how many of you wish you could be suspended from the
microphone racks during live performances.


No, we settle for our memories of monitoring live mic feeds.

Stephen
  #94   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default


wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Scott "big ego, small intellect" Wheeler wrote:
wrote:
wrote:
Howard Ferstler wrote:
MINe 109 wrote:

"Curvilinear"? Isn't that ML's way of trying to be more
Ferstler-approved by diddling the dispersion?

Actually, unless the diaphragm is changing size as it

moves
back and forth, the curved shape will not allow for any
better dispersion than what we would get with a flat
diaphragm.


Guess again dimbulb.


YOU guess again, dimmestbulb: the radius of the outer (front)

grid
is
larger than the radius of the inner (rear) grid. Howard is
absolutely
correct: the diaphragm *must* be "changing size" in order for

there
to
be an increase in the horizontal dispersion (without an

increase
in
distortions). This would require "perfect elasticity" of the
diaphragm
material over it's excursion.


Wheeler, without addressing the issue, scrawls:

OK you are as dumb as Ferstler. Congradulations.

BTW, do tell *where* Ferstler is wrong about the dispersion

issue.
And
save the insults for when you are standing in front of a mirror.




Not very bright are you? Go back and reread what Ferstler said and

then
figure out why he was being an idiot.


Why don't you reread what Ferstler said. Howard is correct: in order
for there to be an effect on dispersion, the diaphragm must "change
size as it moves back and forth". I know it's difficult for you, but
think about it for a bit. Keep in mind that the front (outer) grid is

a
larger radius than the rear (inner) grid. The diaphragm must move
between these grids in order to produce sound. Go get a paper and
pencil and draw it out if you must. Keep at it, eventually, you'll

"get
it".



Still don't get it do you? I guess I have to spell it out for you.
Howie is bright enough to know the diaphrams are fixed at the
parimeter. He questions whether or not the CLS technology will really
work because to do so the diaphram would have to change size (flex) but
he's not bright enough to figure out that the damned thing wouldn't
make any ****ing sound at all if it weren't flexing to begin with! So
there. You are all idiots. Get a life. It would be about the same to
question whether automobile technology really works because the wheels
would have to turn for the car to go anywhere.






Do you always agree with idiots?

I almost never agree with you. Does that answer your question, idiot?



Yes. You always agree with idiots. Time to leave the nest dude.




Scott Wheeler

  #95   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default


MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:
MINe 109 wrote:
"Curvilinear"? Isn't that ML's way of trying to be more
Ferstler-approved by diddling the dispersion?


Actually, unless the diaphragm is changing size as it moves
back and forth, the curved shape will not allow for any
better dispersion than what we would get with a flat
diaphragm.


Poor deluded ML.


Note that Howard Ferstler took the other side of this argument
a few years back when he claimed that it was the _shape_ of the
Allison tweeter that led to its claimed wide dispersion.

If shaping the Allison's diaphragm improves its dispersion, then
the same mechanism works for MartinLogan. But if Howard is
correct about the ML, then he his earlier argument in favor of
the Allison tweeter must have been in error.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile



  #96   Report Post  
Lionel
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In .com, John Atkinson
wrote :


MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:
MINe 109 wrote:
"Curvilinear"? Isn't that ML's way of trying to be more
Ferstler-approved by diddling the dispersion?

Actually, unless the diaphragm is changing size as it moves
back and forth, the curved shape will not allow for any
better dispersion than what we would get with a flat
diaphragm.


Poor deluded ML.


Note that Howard Ferstler took the other side of this argument
a few years back when he claimed that it was the _shape_ of the
Allison tweeter that led to its claimed wide dispersion.

If shaping the Allison's diaphragm improves its dispersion, then
the same mechanism works for MartinLogan. But if Howard is
correct about the ML, then he his earlier argument in favor of
the Allison tweeter must have been in error.


When the discussion is about tweeter (diaphragm, shape, dispersion...) the
idiot is often the one who says "I know".

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile


  #97   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



John Atkinson said:

"Curvilinear"? Isn't that ML's way of trying to be more
Ferstler-approved by diddling the dispersion?

Actually, unless the diaphragm is changing size as it moves
back and forth, the curved shape will not allow for any
better dispersion than what we would get with a flat
diaphragm.


Poor deluded ML.


Note that Howard Ferstler took the other side of this argument
a few years back when he claimed that it was the _shape_ of the
Allison tweeter that led to its claimed wide dispersion.

If shaping the Allison's diaphragm improves its dispersion, then
the same mechanism works for MartinLogan. But if Howard is
correct about the ML, then he his earlier argument in favor of
the Allison tweeter must have been in error.



In profile, Martin-Logan speakers evoke a feeling of potency because of
their leanness and erect stance. Isn't Harold afraid of skyscrapers too?





  #98   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John Atkinson wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:


In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:


MINe 109 wrote:


"Curvilinear"? Isn't that ML's way of trying to be more
Ferstler-approved by diddling the dispersion?


Actually, unless the diaphragm is changing size as it moves
back and forth, the curved shape will not allow for any
better dispersion than what we would get with a flat
diaphragm.


Poor deluded ML.


Note that Howard Ferstler took the other side of this argument
a few years back when he claimed that it was the _shape_ of the
Allison tweeter that led to its claimed wide dispersion.


I dunno. The motion of the diaphragm of a dome tweeter is per Geddes,
quite complex even chaotic. It is quite clearly *not* what you'd
expect from a dome-shaped piston.

I strongly suspect that the same is true of the diaphragms of most
electrostats and other planar speakers operating at mid-to-high
frequencies. They aren't pistons at those frequencies, nothing like
it.

Richard Pierce made essentially the same point about electrostats on
rec.audio.tech in the past few days.

If the diaphragm motion of a planar speaker is sufficiently chaotic,
you end up in NXT-land. These speakers sound vastly different from
traditional fractional-band FR measurements might suggest, because
their radiation pattern is so chaotic.



  #99   Report Post  
Arny Krueger
 
Posts: n/a
Default

George M. Middius wrote:

In profile, Martin-Logan speakers evoke a feeling of potency because
of their leanness and erect stance.


Freud was right. Fantasies can reveal the truth. Guess which RAO
regular named Middius isn't getting any these days?


  #100   Report Post  
 
Posts: n/a
Default

wrote:

snipped

Stephen asked:

"Curvilinear"? Isn't that ML's way of trying to be

more
Ferstler-approved by diddling the dispersion?


Howard ferstler answered:

Actually, unless the diaphragm is changing size as it

moves
back and forth, the curved shape will not allow for any
better dispersion than what we would get with a flat
diaphragm.


Scott Wheeler shot from the hip:


Guess again dimbulb.


And now, here's Scott Wheeler's 'final answer':


Still don't get it do you? I guess I have to spell it out for you.
Howie is bright enough to know the diaphrams are fixed at the
parimeter. He questions whether or not the CLS technology will really
work because to do so the diaphram would have to change size (flex)

but
he's not bright enough to figure out that the damned thing wouldn't
make any ****ing sound at all if it weren't flexing to begin with! So
there. You are all idiots. Get a life. It would be about the same to
question whether automobile technology really works because the

wheels
would have to turn for the car to go anywhere.


Here's a news flash: "flexing" and "changing size" *are not* the same
thing. Go read what Howard said. Howard was addressing the issue of
whether or not M-L's "CLS technology" affects the (horizontal)
dispersion v. a (conventional) flat diaphragm. Care to address *that*
issue with facts?






  #101   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...
MINe 109 wrote:


You might hear performers breathing at live performances if you stood
where the mics are.

Stephen


Interestingly, this kind of overkill sonic presentation is
what many tweakos consider the height of audio realism. I
wonder how many of you wish you could be suspended from the
microphone racks during live performances.


Of course, for all you close mic fans, the ideal live listening
position is to be stuffed down the bell of a tuba.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #102   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


In profile, Martin-Logan speakers evoke a feeling of potency because of
their leanness and erect stance. Isn't Harold afraid of skyscrapers too?


Well, we know he likes tree houses.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #103   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:


Interestingly, this kind of overkill sonic presentation is
what many tweakos consider the height of audio realism. I
wonder how many of you wish you could be suspended from the
microphone racks during live performances.


No, we settle for our memories of monitoring live mic feeds.


Which, incidentally, is no more accurate than a digital
copy.

PS: audio memories are notoriously inaccurate, which is why
it is handy to have that digital copy.

Howard Ferstler
  #104   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John Atkinson wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:
MINe 109 wrote:
"Curvilinear"? Isn't that ML's way of trying to be more
Ferstler-approved by diddling the dispersion?

Actually, unless the diaphragm is changing size as it moves
back and forth, the curved shape will not allow for any
better dispersion than what we would get with a flat
diaphragm.


Poor deluded ML.


Note that Howard Ferstler took the other side of this argument
a few years back when he claimed that it was the _shape_ of the
Allison tweeter that led to its claimed wide dispersion.


It is. The tweeter behaves similarly to a pulsating
hemisphere of very small size.

If shaping the Allison's diaphragm improves its dispersion, then
the same mechanism works for MartinLogan.


The ML device is much larger in size than the Allison unit.
Actually, the central dome of the Allison is only 1/2 inch
across, which makes it inherently better at dispersing sound
than any large diaphragm, even one that expands and
contracts as a partial cylinder. The Allison tweeter has a
rather large surround, making the overall diameter about one
inch, and that surround moves in a somewhat radial manner,
which works with the small central diaphragm to disperse
sound nicely, while at the same time allowing the whole unit
do have power handling and power output approaching what we
normally have with conventional one-inch domes.

But if Howard is
correct about the ML, then he his earlier argument in favor of
the Allison tweeter must have been in error.


No. Two points:

1) Obviously you do not understand that there is more to it
than having the driver simply get larger and smaller in
size. The actual size is also important.

2) Because conventional, flat-panel systems also expand and
contract in size, compared to what the curved ML panel does,
they probably have horizontal dispersion nearly as good as
the curved versions. Unfortunately, this "nearly as good"
feature is not particularly good at all. Large radiating
areas do not disperse all that well in the midrange and
treble.

The ML systems are directional, period. Some people like
that sort of thing, and I can certainly understand why. They
exhibit one characteristic that most audio buffs favor:
superb direct-field clarity, even if, as Stan Lip****z noted
decades ago, they also have a choppy frequency response
above the lower midrange. It remains to be seen if a
dominant direct-field signal is conducive to live-music
realism in home-listening environments. With some recordings
it probably is. With others it probably is not.

The solution: have systems of both kinds in different rooms
of the house and listen to each as required. Admittedly, my
Dunlavy Cantatas are not flat-panel jobs, but they suffice
as good, focussed, strong first-arrival-signal systems.
Needless to say, my Allison IC-20 systems satisfy most
wide-dispersion requirements.

Howard Ferstler
  #105   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:


Poor deluded ML.


Trust me. They know how to market speakers.


"[2] MartinLogan curvilinear line source electrostatic speakers
output a more focused dispersion pattern which maximizes
the direct sound field and minimizes the reflected sound
fields and room reverberation."

They seem to think it does something.


Sure, and it can work just fine. (See my response to John
Atkinson's comments within this same thread.) It can work
better with some recordings than others, and also works
better in some rooms than in others. However, no matter what
we think about focussed sound from large-area, line-source
diaphragms, we still have to deal with the mathematical
analysis of such transducers by Stan Lip****z a couple of
decades back. I am not sure that large-panel speakers are
the best way to deliver focussed, directional sound. I think
that Lip****z felt the same way, too.

Ah, the myth of electrostatic resonance.


Large areas that are not stiff in relation to their size
will always resonate at certain frequencies, particularly if
there is flexing involved. And flexing is involved, because
the diaphragm is solidly connected at the perimeter.


What if they have negligible mass?


This is actually irrelevant. If they resonate, due to
flexing over a large area, then they interact with the air
mass in front of them and produce artifacts - some of which
have to be audible.

I guess you've never heard of Gradient.


I have heard of them. I suppose you are going to tell me
that they have a dipolar bass reproducer that is terrific.


I suppose you're going to tell me they don't.


I have no idea. But if they use dipolar radiators as
subwoofers they are going to have to move a lot of air to
overcome front/back cancellation effects below a certain,
middle-bass frequency.

Actually, I have reviewed a number of subwoofers produced by
otherwise good companies that were not much more than
outboard woofers. I think that you and a number of other
readers here have yet to hear a really good subwoofer go
cleanly down to the bottom of the bottom octave.


I know what deep bass sounds like.


Having experienced listening to it on which systems or
subwoofers?

Especially if you live in an aircraft hangar.


This comment makes no sense whatsoever.


No dipole added depth.


Still does not make sense.


No back wall, no reflection.


OK, first off, let's call that "wall" by its proper name.
You are facing it, so it is really the FRONT wall. Yes, it
is behind the speaker, but it is still the front wall.

But, yes, if the room is large enough and the speaker is
pulled out far enough, the front-wall reflection will be
reduced in strength. However, it will probably still be
there, and if the speaker is pulled out far enough in a huge
room there will be what amounts to an echo.

In any case, it seems to be a shame to have all of that
rear-panel radiation go to waste. For one thing, it cuts the
speaker's output by half.

Pleasant, yes. Wouldn't want any artificially added depth, though. At
least you're admitting they aren't giant headphones.


They have a dominant direct-field signal, followed by a
delayed (depending upon the distance to the front wall
behind the speakers) bounce that adds ersatz depth. That can
work fine, and I have no problem with the effect. However,
one needs to have the speakers in a pretty large room to get
them far enough from that front wall. Side-wall reflections
are minimal, which limits the sense of frontal breadth.
Admittedly, many listeners do not like side-wall
reflections. I rather do like them, however.


Dipoles are often positioned at the side walls. Yes, Quads need some
room, unless you've got a pair of 57s. I've never heard those myself.


At the side walls, how? Are you saying that they are in the
corners? Not good. Are they close to the side walls, but
some distance from the front wall? This would generate a
rather complex series of double-bounce reflections.

Note that while HiFi New rated the ESL-57 as "the greatest
hi-fi product of all time," that rather tweaky magazine is
an English journal and would happily award the prize to one
of their own.


It's just chauvinism? You're crying sour grapes.


Well, they want to support their people.


Are you suggesting that Quad doesn't deserve the award because they're
British? You appear to be bending over backwards to avoid admitting
you've completely missed out on an audio classic.


As I have noted before, there are lots of "classics" out
there. As for deserving or not deserving an award, they may
very well deserve it. However, saying that they are the
greatest of all time is kind of pushing things. If someone
wants my vote for the best speaker of all time (for its era,
at least) I would have to give the award to either the AR-1
(the era of the 1950s) or the AR-3 (the era of the 1960s).
As for the very, very greatest of all time, well my vote
goes to my own Allison IC-20 systems.

One qualification, however. I will say that the point-source
concept is a good one, but I am not sure that Quad has
pulled it off all that well. There is a lot of electrical
manipulation involved, and arcane stuff like that ought to
have you tweakos wringing your worrisome little hands.


Since you haven't heard them, you have no idea if Quad has achieved
their goals or not.


There are certain principles involved in the design that
allow one to intellectualize over the possible results. As I
noted, the delay-line manipulations are certainly over the
top and involve a whole lot more electronic contouring than
you will find with typical speakers produced by other
outfits. Certainly, the manipulations are not conducive to
the purist audio philosophy embraced by many tweakos.
However, my guess is that those tweakos have no idea
whatsoever of just how much electronic processing has to go
on when doing the kind of delay-line work the Quads appear
to employ.


You have not shown you understand how Quad achieves the necessary delays
nor that there are ill effects associated with the method. Please
explain the "contouring" and how Quad implements it.


The signal is delayed as each diaphragm ring around the
center area gets the signal. This allows the system to
simulate a pulsating hemisphere. However, the central
diaphragm is not all that small to begin with, so the
speakers are still relatively directional. Electronic delay
lines have to be employed to delay the signals to each
concentric ring. This is a lot more signal manipulation than
what one would ordinarily find in typical speakers, even
complex high-end jobs.

Please explain how Quad does that "electrical manipulation".


Hey, the delay-line work that allows the diaphragm area to
simulate a pulsating hemisphere. Man, if you do not think
that the control of those concentric circles by a delay-line
circuit does not involve a HELL of a lot of electrical
manipulation, you are not very sharp.


You can't think of another way to do it? Hint: Peter Walker was v. sharp.


Well, you tell me how to delay electrical signals in time.

And Quad are anti-tweako, input capacitors aside.


Sure they are. It is guys like you who have made them into a
tweako icon.


That's the point: they're no tweako icon.


Give me a break.

http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/416/

"Warning to Purists: Despite certain qualities about the ESL-63 speakers
which you will probably like, Quad equipment is not designed primarily
for audiophiles, but for serious-music (call that "classical") listeners
who play records more for musical enjoyment than for the sound."

1983.


Well, the truth of the information notwithstanding, that is
just the kind of comment that would appeal to a tweako as
well as a genuine music lover.

Howard Ferstler


  #106   Report Post  
George M. Middius
 
Posts: n/a
Default



The Krooborg dallies with his dingus.

In profile, Martin-Logan speakers evoke a feeling of potency because
of their leanness and erect stance.


Freud


No, you may not suck my dick.




  #107   Report Post  
John Atkinson
 
Posts: n/a
Default


Howard Ferstler wrote:
1) Obviously you do not understand that there is more to it
than having the driver simply get larger and smaller in
size. The actual size is also important.


Size matters in relation to wavelength of the sounds being produced.

2) Because conventional, flat-panel systems also expand and
contract in size, compared to what the curved ML panel does,
they probably have horizontal dispersion nearly as good as
the curved versions.


Not in my experience. If you look at my measurements of the
Innersound Eros' horizontal dispersion -- see
http://stereophile.com/loudspeakerre...19/index6.html -- then
look at my measurements of the similarly proportioned panel of the
MartinLogan Prodigy -- see
http://www.stereophile.com//loudspea...90/index5.html --
you can see that the Prodigy's curved panel does indeed offer
wider treble dispersion.

Large radiating areas do not disperse all that well in the
midrange and treble.


All things being equal, yes. But all things are rarely equal. Again,
compare the radiation patterns of the two electrostatic speakers
I referenced above. Whether it is due to the ML's curved diaphragm
or to some other factor, their panel does indeed offer quite good
lateral dispersion.

Needless to say, my Allison IC-20 systems satisfy most
wide-dispersion requirements.


Except that these speakers do not have wide dispersion, Mr.
Ferstler, nor have you provided any measurements that support this
claim. Indeed, your own in-room measureements show that the direct
sound of the speakers predominates in the treble at your listening
position.

John Atkinson
Editor, Stereophile

  #108   Report Post  
Lionel_Chapuis
 
Posts: n/a
Default

George M. Middius wrote:



The Krooborg dallies with his dingus.

In profile, Martin-Logan speakers evoke a feeling of potency because
of their leanness and erect stance.


Freud


No, you may not suck my dick.


Which dick ?







----------
Sent via SPRACI - http://www.spraci.com/ - Parties,Raves,Clubs,Festivals

  #109   Report Post  
MINe 109
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

Me:
I know what deep bass sounds like.


Having experienced listening to it on which systems or
subwoofers?


Real life. Double bass in my listening room. Oh, yes, a piano in my
listening room.

Then there's the opera, the orchestra, the pipe organ concerts...

Stephen
  #110   Report Post  
MINe 109
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

Me:
Dipoles are often positioned at the side walls. Yes, Quads need some
room, unless you've got a pair of 57s. I've never heard those myself.


At the side walls, how? Are you saying that they are in the
corners? Not good. Are they close to the side walls, but
some distance from the front wall? This would generate a
rather complex series of double-bounce reflections.


Not in the corners. Sheesh. Next to the walls. In my room, five or six
feet from the front wall. Dipoles, figure eight, right?

Stephen


  #111   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"Howard Ferstler" wrote in message
...


PS: audio memories are notoriously inaccurate, which is why
it is handy to have that digital copy.


Thus, when you 'remember' that everything sounds the same,
you are likely to be wrong.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #112   Report Post  
MINe 109
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

Me:
You have not shown you understand how Quad achieves the necessary delays
nor that there are ill effects associated with the method. Please
explain the "contouring" and how Quad implements it.


The signal is delayed as each diaphragm ring around the
center area gets the signal. This allows the system to
simulate a pulsating hemisphere. However, the central
diaphragm is not all that small to begin with, so the
speakers are still relatively directional. Electronic delay
lines have to be employed to delay the signals to each
concentric ring. This is a lot more signal manipulation than
what one would ordinarily find in typical speakers, even
complex high-end jobs.


That's 'what'. Now do 'how'. And the "signal manipulation" is relative
(there are plenty of complicated crossovers out there).

Please explain how Quad does that "electrical manipulation".


Hey, the delay-line work that allows the diaphragm area to
simulate a pulsating hemisphere. Man, if you do not think
that the control of those concentric circles by a delay-line
circuit does not involve a HELL of a lot of electrical
manipulation, you are not very sharp.


You can't think of another way to do it? Hint: Peter Walker was v. sharp.


Well, you tell me how to delay electrical signals in time.


Inductors. Wire, lots of it. But you shouldn't take my word for it. Do
the work. Look, there's a book:

http://www.tnt-audio.com/books/quad_kessler_e.html

Stephen
  #113   Report Post  
Clyde Slick
 
Posts: n/a
Default


"MINe 109" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

Me:
I know what deep bass sounds like.


Having experienced listening to it on which systems or
subwoofers?


Real life. Double bass in my listening room. Oh, yes, a piano in my
listening room.

Then there's the opera, the orchestra, the pipe organ concerts...

\

They visited my livingroom, too.



----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----
  #114   Report Post  
MINe 109
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

Me:
And Quad are anti-tweako, input capacitors aside.


Sure they are. It is guys like you who have made them into a
tweako icon.


That's the point: they're no tweako icon.


Give me a break.


Quick: what did Peter Walker think about amp sound and wire?

http://www.stereophile.com/loudspeakerreviews/416/

"Warning to Purists: Despite certain qualities about the ESL-63 speakers
which you will probably like, Quad equipment is not designed primarily
for audiophiles, but for serious-music (call that "classical") listeners
who play records more for musical enjoyment than for the sound."

1983.


Well, the truth of the information notwithstanding, that is
just the kind of comment that would appeal to a tweako as
well as a genuine music lover.


My, you're limber for your age...

Stephen
  #115   Report Post  
MINe 109
 
Posts: n/a
Default

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:


Interestingly, this kind of overkill sonic presentation is
what many tweakos consider the height of audio realism. I
wonder how many of you wish you could be suspended from the
microphone racks during live performances.


No, we settle for our memories of monitoring live mic feeds.


Which, incidentally, is no more accurate than a digital
copy.


Not quite.

PS: audio memories are notoriously inaccurate, which is why
it is handy to have that digital copy.


Digital copy of wishing one were suspended from a microphone rack?

Stephen


  #116   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

John Atkinson wrote:

Howard Ferstler wrote:
1) Obviously you do not understand that there is more to it
than having the driver simply get larger and smaller in
size. The actual size is also important.


Size matters in relation to wavelength of the sounds being produced.


Certainly. And with upper midrange and treble frequencies
one wants a driver to be small in size, if wide and uniform
dispersion is the goal. Now, for some enthusiasts this is
not a goal, and I can understand their stance on this. It
can be impressive to sit in the sweet spot, with a pair of
very finely focussed speakers toed in and aimed at the
listener's head. The soundstaging is impressive and the
recording has a headphone-like clarity that can be
intoxicating.

With some program sources this is great. With others it is
not so great, and wider-dispersion speakers may generate a
greater illusion.

Some feel that going with the former arrangement and then
synthetically adding spaciousness via surround speakers
delivers the best of both worlds. I can see that point, too,
and operate my middle system just that way. Indeed, I go the
concept one step further and employ a Yamaha processor with
those front "effects" speakers generating an ersatz sense of
frontal depth and width. It is very effective.

However, I still prefer, at least with most recordings, the
wide-dispersion approach with the main speakers, even when
front effects and basic surround channels are also added in.
This is a matter of taste on my part, by the way. I am not
going to dictate terms when it comes to speaker dispersion,
except that if a speaker has narrow dispersion the wide and
weak off-axis response would best be at least be reasonably
flat. That is no easy thing to pull off, by the way.

2) Because conventional, flat-panel systems also expand and
contract in size, compared to what the curved ML panel does,
they probably have horizontal dispersion nearly as good as
the curved versions.


Not in my experience. If you look at my measurements of the
Innersound Eros' horizontal dispersion -- see
http://stereophile.com/loudspeakerre...19/index6.html -- then
look at my measurements of the similarly proportioned panel of the
MartinLogan Prodigy -- see
http://www.stereophile.com//loudspea...90/index5.html --
you can see that the Prodigy's curved panel does indeed offer
wider treble dispersion.


But still not particularly wide, compared to what good
dynamic speakers with smallish midrange (2 to 4 inch) and
tweeter (3/4 to one inch) drivers can do. The difference
between the latter and both of the other, wide-panel designs
is considerable.

Large radiating areas do not disperse all that well in the
midrange and treble.


All things being equal, yes. But all things are rarely equal.


They are equal enough if we are talking about radiation
pattern performance. Note that I am not criticizing
narrow-dispersion speakers, provided they are consistently
narrow dispersing and not choppy in terms of response
smoothness at wide off-axis angles.

Again,
compare the radiation patterns of the two electrostatic speakers
I referenced above. Whether it is due to the ML's curved diaphragm
or to some other factor, their panel does indeed offer quite good
lateral dispersion.


Out to how many degrees off axis? I find that some reviewers
(not you, please note) will not go out much beyond 30 or 45
degrees off axis with their measurements. However, as far as
I am concerned those are anything but wide angles off axis.
To be meaningful, measurements have to go out past 60
degrees, and preferably to 90 degrees. The question is: just
what do these off-axis curves mean?

OK, for some it means that a speaker will be directional
enough to simulate a large pair of headphones, provided the
listener sits locked into the sweet spot. However, for
others it means that the speaker is not interacting with the
room to form a presentable soundstage. Yes, I know that for
some enthusiasts the room is not supposed to be in the
picture at all. For them, a clean first-arrival signal is
what floats their boat, and anyway this can be achieved
(narrow dispersion, room with padded walls, phase coherency,
etc.) is proper.

However, if the first-arrival signal was all that dominant,
speakers would sound the same outdoors as they do indoors.
Or at least as good outdoors as they do indoors. However, in
just about any case they sound worse outdoors, because the
reverberant field is absolutely essential when it comes to
determining the spectral balance, envelopment, and sense of
playback space of a speaker in home-listening situations.
And the only way to guarantee a flat and balanced
reverberant field is to have speakers with wide and uniform
dispersion. Opting for narrow dispersion is kind of like
playing with fire.

Also, because the direct field is going to change its own,
small spectral balance from position to position (due to
driver interference effects being different at each
location), measuring at any location (particularly up close,
at a one- or two-meter interval) will not give the listener
an idea of just how the speaker would sound, even if the
direct field was as important as some believe. Indeed,
because we listen with two spaced-apart ears, no single
microphone measurement can capture what both ears would
hear, particularly at higher frequencies.

The reverberant field is overwhelmingly more powerful than
the direct field in just about any home-listening
environment (excepting those that are set up like anechoic
chambers, of course), and the most the direct-field output
can normally do is secure imaging information for the
listener. The reverberant field determines spectral balance,
and even more importantly, the sense of space and
envelopment.

As I once stated in a book, and also once stated in a
magazine article or two, while the angles between 0 and 45
degrees off axis and 45 degrees and 90 degrees are the same,
the area covered by the latter is nearly 2.5 times as great.
Hence, if we are talking about spectral balance in most
rooms (not those that are padded like the inside of a
mattress), the response beyond 45 degrees off is as
important as the response at narrower angles.

Sorry for the digression, but I had to get all of this off
of my chest. Well, I have said as much in two, or maybe even
three, books, as well. Remember also that this is just my
opinion, of course.

Needless to say, my Allison IC-20 systems satisfy most
wide-dispersion requirements.


Except that these speakers do not have wide dispersion, Mr.
Ferstler, nor have you provided any measurements that support this
claim.


Do not have wide dispersion? Give me a break. Do not posture
about this, John. You know as well as I that whatever one
may think of the Allison designs, poor dispersion is not one
of their characteristics.

The original reviews of the IC-20 systems by both High
Fidelity Magazine and Stereo Review commented upon their
ultra-wide dispersion. Even if the systems had only one
forward-facing panel they would have those Allison drivers
dispersing widely clear out to 90 degrees off axis. However,
they have dual panels, each angled out 45 degrees from dead
ahead, meaning that they have extremely wide dispersion to
each side and out to 135 degrees off axis.

I find it hard to believe that at this date you are not
aware of just how wide dispersing the Allison designs were,
John. Heck, scads of commentators from Hirsch to Brad Meyer
to Mark Davis to Dave Moran have discussed those drivers
(particularly the tweeter) and their dispersion qualities.

John Stone, some time back, managed to get hold of an
Allison tweeter (a ferrofluid cooled two-way version) and
had his people at SEAS analyze it. They admitted that it had
dispersion qualities that even surpassed their best 3/4 inch
model. (Allison also has supplied me with curves comparing
it to the 3/4-inch AR-3a tweeter, and I even published those
curves in my first book.) Note that Stone's people also
thought the tweeter had excessive distortion below 3 kHz.
However, the unit only has to go below that frequency with
the low-priced Allison two-way designs, which even Allison
admitted are by necessity performance compromised systems.
With the more upscale three-way systems the tweeter has only
to go a tad below 4 kHz before the signal is attenuated and
the midrange takes over. Above that frequency, the
distortion is low and the dispersion surpasses just about
any other tweeter going, particularly typical one-inch jobs.

Indeed, your own in-room measureements show that the direct
sound of the speakers predominates in the treble at your listening
position.


It depends. I do only room-curve measurements (leaving it to
listening tests to evaluate everything else - and yes I am
more of a subjectivist with speakers than most tweaks would
like to admit), and so there is going to always be a blend
between the direct- and reverberant-field signals.

With some systems, the direct field tends to dominate, at
least above the midrange. With others, the reverberant field
dominates (this is the case with the Allison designs), and
it will just about always dominate at frequencies below the
middle of the midrange. The direct/reverberant balance will
impact soundstaging and imaging, but I have long been more
interested in spectral balance than either of those
characteristics, and so my measurement and listening
techniques serve me quite well. One thing for sure, I can
correlate what I measure with what I hear. With some
reviewers (not you as best I can tell) many of the
measurements they take cannot be correlated with much of
anything that is audible.

So, don't tell me that you are not aware of the dispersion
qualities of the Allison drivers and the systems they are
mounted in. I know you must keep track of what various old
Allison fans have said about that issue.

Howard Ferstler
  #117   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

Me:
I know what deep bass sounds like.


Having experienced listening to it on which systems or
subwoofers?


Real life. Double bass in my listening room. Oh, yes, a piano in my
listening room.

Then there's the opera, the orchestra, the pipe organ concerts...


OK, now the other wonders of the double bass not
withstanding, that instrument does not go LOW into the bass
range. And while a piano can indeed get down to 27 Hz, the
fundamental is weak and the harmonics dominate. A piano
simply does not get down into the cellar, even with its
fundamental.

The orchestra (opera or otherwise) also does not go
particularly low. Any good "woofer" system that is flat to
40 Hz can handle just about anything an orchestra can throw
at it.

That leaves the pipe organ. Now, I have a lot of pipe-organ
recordings and some do indeed, go down to below 25 or 30 Hz,
or even below 20 Hz. I have a couple that are strong to
16-18 Hz. However, while you may enjoy some organ concerts
here and there, my guess is that only rarely have those
organs hit the very bottom. They would not do that without
32-foot pipes in any case, and my guess is that the organ at
your establishment does not have those.

So, Stephen, I continue to believe that you have yet to hear
really deep bass from an audio system. Man, you do not know
what you are missing.

Howard Ferstler
  #118   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

Me:
Dipoles are often positioned at the side walls. Yes, Quads need some
room, unless you've got a pair of 57s. I've never heard those myself.


At the side walls, how? Are you saying that they are in the
corners? Not good. Are they close to the side walls, but
some distance from the front wall? This would generate a
rather complex series of double-bounce reflections.


Not in the corners. Sheesh. Next to the walls. In my room, five or six
feet from the front wall. Dipoles, figure eight, right?


Well, I am not sure just what kind of impact having them
close to the side walls will generate. I mean, you do get an
initial, angled reflection off of that side wall (due to the
tow in) and that reflected signal will then be reflected off
of the front wall and splayed out into the room somewhat
behind the direct signal in time. No telling the effect, but
if it sounds good to you I suppose that is all that matters.

Incidentally, electrostatics are known to be tricky loads
for all but the best amps. Can that receiver of yours deal
with that speaker decently? I mean you obviously think it
can, but does anyone else here think it might have problems?
Generally, enthusiasts say that an amp that can happily
handle a capacitive load is mandatory for electrostatics,
and such amps usually are fairly expensive.

Yep, with electrostatics all amps probably do not sound the
same, my well-known opinions on the subject of "amp sound"
notwithstanding.

Howard Ferstler
  #119   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

MINe 109 wrote:

In article ,
Howard Ferstler wrote:

Me:
You have not shown you understand how Quad achieves the necessary delays
nor that there are ill effects associated with the method. Please
explain the "contouring" and how Quad implements it.


The signal is delayed as each diaphragm ring around the
center area gets the signal. This allows the system to
simulate a pulsating hemisphere. However, the central
diaphragm is not all that small to begin with, so the
speakers are still relatively directional. Electronic delay
lines have to be employed to delay the signals to each
concentric ring. This is a lot more signal manipulation than
what one would ordinarily find in typical speakers, even
complex high-end jobs.


That's 'what'. Now do 'how'.


Well, I do not know how. However, I do know that it requires
a fair amount of electrical circuitry to pull it off.
Signals are not just passing through smoothly and
unmanipulated to those concentric panel rings, excepting the
center area, obviously.

And the "signal manipulation" is relative
(there are plenty of complicated crossovers out there).


Yep. You ought to see the on in my Dunlavy Cantatas. I had
no idea that a first-order crossover could have so many
components.

Please explain how Quad does that "electrical manipulation".


Hey, the delay-line work that allows the diaphragm area to
simulate a pulsating hemisphere. Man, if you do not think
that the control of those concentric circles by a delay-line
circuit does not involve a HELL of a lot of electrical
manipulation, you are not very sharp.


You can't think of another way to do it? Hint: Peter Walker was v. sharp.


Well, you tell me how to delay electrical signals in time.


Inductors. Wire, lots of it. But you shouldn't take my word for it. Do
the work. Look, there's a book:

http://www.tnt-audio.com/books/quad_kessler_e.html


Kessler again. Fine. However, this means that the speaker
elements are dealing with anything but pristine signals. All
sorts of oddities could be involved.

Yep, it works (at least for you and other fans of the
speaker), but that does not mean that it works better than a
number of other superb designs that are more conventional.
And it does not mean that the speakers have some mysterious
qualities that make them sound more transparent than those
other designs. Indeed, if direct-field, sweet-spot
transparency is your reference standard, it seems to me that
the original and much simpler early Quad models would have
an advantage, even though their dispersion qualities were
lousy.

Howard Ferstler
  #120   Report Post  
Howard Ferstler
 
Posts: n/a
Default

MINe 109 wrote:

That's the point: they're no tweako icon.


Give me a break.


Quick: what did Peter Walker think about amp sound and wire?


I have read his opinions on this before. I think that his
views pretty much paralleled mine - and Arny's.

Howard Ferstler
Reply
Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question regarding Phantom Power Neil Pro Audio 110 September 27th 04 02:30 PM
Question regarding Phantom Power Neil Pro Audio 0 September 24th 04 06:44 PM
Question regarding Phantom Power Neil Pro Audio 0 September 24th 04 06:44 PM
newbie question - aardvark q10 + external mixer? alex Pro Audio 1 August 14th 04 07:29 PM
RCA out and Speaker Question in 2004 Ranger Edge Question magicianstalk Car Audio 0 March 10th 04 03:32 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:00 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 AudioBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about Audio and hi-fi"