Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#11
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Forum | |||
Question regarding Phantom Power | Pro Audio | |||
Question regarding Phantom Power | Pro Audio | |||
Question regarding Phantom Power | Pro Audio | |||
newbie question - aardvark q10 + external mixer? | Pro Audio | |||
RCA out and Speaker Question in 2004 Ranger Edge Question | Car Audio |