Home |
Search |
Today's Posts |
#81
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#83
|
|||
|
|||
|
#84
|
|||
|
|||
|
#85
|
|||
|
|||
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. Did you "gratuade" high school, dim-dim? 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. |
#87
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#88
|
|||
|
|||
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. Did you "gratuade" high school, dim-dim? Did you ever in your life move out of your parent's home and support yourself? 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. Do you always agree with the idiots? Scott Wheeler |
#89
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
"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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 |