[bob]

On Jan 15, 6:37*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:23:54 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote

That would be a matter of opinion.

Actually its not.

Actually, it is. It is One Man's Opinion. In this day and age, we have
better ways of judging loudspeaker quality than relying on One Man's
Opinion.

Speaking of which, if anyone in the LA area has a pair of these
things, I'm sure Sean Olive would love to test them against top-of-the-
line Revels.

bob

[Arny Krueger]

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:23:54 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


* The best speakers, for instance, are very expensive.
You cannot get the kind of performance that defines the
state-the-art in speakers at much less than $25 grand.

That would be a matter of opinion. I've seen some
spectacular overpricing, based on probable manufacturing
costs.

I'm not talking about overpriced speakers. I'm talking
about state-of-the-art speakers. They are expensive and
their performance is not replicated at lower price points.

Details and examples please.

It's not like you can duplicate a good $25k system for
$1k, but maybe $5-7k. A lot of system performance is
wrapped up in matching up the room and the speakers.
$25k speakers can sound pretty bad if the room and the
setup aren't right.

Nobody is arguing that a bad room can't ruin a good
speaker, that's irrelevant to the point.

For instance, the best speaker system I've ever heard is
the Martin Logan CLX with a pair of M-L "Depth i"
subwoofers at around $30 grand.

Subwoofers are particularly easy save big bucks on.

Not and make them meld seamlessly with those
electrostatic panels.

That would not be a generally agreed-upon truth.

You can't get that kind
of performance for a penny less and you can spend a
whole lot more.

That would be a matter of opinion.

Actually its not. The CLX's are, quite simply, the most
transparent speakers made to date. No other speaker is as
quick, as utterly low in distortion or anywhere near as
revealing.

That would be an opinion, not a widely accepted fact. I see zero technical
evidence to support that claim. I even went to the M-L web site and found
none.

One counterpoint is that the idea of quick or fast woofers is urban legend
and technical double-talk. While there are some very slow woofers, in
general woofer drivers do not set the speed of their part of the system. The
active crossover is usually the determining factor. In general, all woofers
are too fast and must be slowed down to do their job effectively.

The most important technical key to an effective woofer for use with
planar-style (Yes, the MLs are curved, but they are still in the planar
class) speakers is to duplicate the directivity of the upper-range driver
with the subwoofer as closely as possible. Usually, this means making a
bidirectional woofer which is a bit of a contradiction in terms. But, it is
not mission impossible with the right room and appropriate speaker
placement. One source of detailed technical information about bidirectional
woofers is:

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/orion_us.htm

Note that once you extend the low end of a woofer deep enough, it is still
recommended to use a more conventional subwoofer:

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/thor-intro.htm

[[email protected]]

On Jan 16, 8:24*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message







On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:23:54 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


* The best speakers, for instance, are very expensive.
You cannot get the kind of performance that defines the
state-the-art in speakers at much less than $25 grand.

That would be a matter of opinion. *I've seen some
spectacular overpricing, based on probable manufacturing
costs.

I'm not talking about overpriced speakers. I'm talking
about state-of-the-art speakers. They are expensive and
their performance is not replicated at lower price points.

Details and examples please.


Other than the Martin Logan CLX? I would offer the Soun Lab Majestics.



It's not like you can duplicate a good $25k system for
$1k, but maybe $5-7k. A lot of system performance is
wrapped up in matching up the room and the speakers.
$25k speakers can sound pretty bad if the room and the
setup aren't right.
Nobody is arguing that a bad room can't ruin a good
speaker, that's irrelevant to the point.
For instance, the best speaker system I've ever heard is
the Martin Logan CLX with a pair of M-L "Depth i"
subwoofers at around $30 grand.

Subwoofers are particularly easy save big bucks on.
Not and make them meld seamlessly with those
electrostatic panels.

That would not be a generally agreed-upon truth.

I think it is a pretty common opinion in certain circles, that being
owners of electrostatic speakers. I found it to be very tricky with
both my Martin Logan CLSs and my Sound Lab A3s. I know many other
owners of electrostatic speakers. Not one has ever talked about
"easily" mating their speakers with subwoofers. This is quite
anecdotal but I'm not sure how one "measures" "generally agreed upon
truth."



You can't get that kind
of performance for a penny less and you can spend a
whole lot more.
That would be a matter of opinion.
Actually its not. The CLX's are, quite simply, the most
transparent speakers made to date. No other speaker is as
quick, as utterly low in distortion or anywhere near as
revealing.

That would be an opinion, not a widely accepted fact. I see zero technical
evidence to support that claim. I even went to the M-L web site and found
none.

One counterpoint is that the idea of quick or fast woofers is urban legend
and technical double-talk. While there are some very slow woofers, in
general woofer drivers do not set the speed of their part of the system. The
active crossover is usually the determining factor. In general, all woofers
are too fast and must be slowed down to do their job effectively.

Not so much urban legend as much as misinterpretation of the common
audiophile usage of the words "slow" and "fast." It is a figurative
description that fits the aural perception. No different than calling
speakers bright. Bright speakers do not emit more light any more than
"fast" bass is literally faster than "slow" bass. It is not uncommon
to find bass performance that lacks percieved articulation and
coherance with the rest of the audio spectrum. That would be "slow"
bass.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 15, 3:38*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 06:20:31 -0800, bob wrote
(in article ):





On Jan 14, 6:33*pm, Sonnova wrote:
On Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:14:03 -0800, bob wrote

Decent stereo equipment is cheaper than it's ever been. What's gone
into the stratosphere is "high-end" stereo equipment, which is not the
same thing. And that has happened as the "industry" has become
unhinged from reality—there's no correlation between price and
performance. It's all jewelry.

While that may be true (although I don't fully buy it*) its irrelevant. The
point is that high-end equipment has become extremely expensive because
their
are, apparently, lots of people who buy only on the basis of a high price
tag. *

I think you're unintentionally confusing "high-end" and "good-
sounding" here. There is a market segment that is willing to spend
gobs of money but doesn't really care about sound quality. And that
segment will be served by equipment that costs gobs of money and may
or may not sound any good. There's another segment of the market that
that does care about quality sound, but only has a single gob of money
to spend. That segment seems well-served by the market as well. The
first segment isn't driving up prices; it's creating a new price
category.

snip

* The best speakers, for instance, are very expensive. You cannot get the
kind of performance that defines the state-the-art in speakers at much less
than $25 grand. For instance, the best speaker system I've ever heard is the
Martin Logan CLX with a pair of M-L "Depth i" subwoofers at around $30
grand.
You can't get that kind of performance for a penny less and you can spend a
whole lot more.

Your example may prove my point. It may be that most of these speakers
are being bought by McMansion owners. But if it weren't for those
McMansion owners, ML would not be selling those speakers for less;
instead, ML would not be making those speakers at all, because there
wouldn't be enough of a market for them. But that wouldn't have much
impact on either the quality or the marketability of ML's $10K/pr
speakers, which might be within the reach of affluent quality-
conscious audiophiles. And I think you'd agree that ML's $10K
offerings are "decent," to use the term you started with.

They are "decent" when compared to other speakers in that price range, but
the CLX's are a whole different ball game. I strongly suggest that you try to
audition them. Be prepared for a life altering audio experience (from 50 Hz,
up, that is).



Another way to look at this is from the bottom of the market up. In
1978, I spent $500 on my first stereo system. Today, on other forums,
I sometimes suggest $500 systems to newbies with that much to spend.
The stuff I recommend to them is world's better than what I was able
to buy 30 years ago for the same *nominal* price. Add inflation to the
mix, and the comparison is ludicrous. I spent the equivalent of over
$1500 in today's dollars for that system. These newbies are getting a
much better system for a third of the price today.

There is no doubt, that while the "trickle-down" theory might not work in
economics, the way Ronald Reagan envisioned it, anyway, it seems to work well
in audio. Yes, performance that was state-of-the-art 30 years ago, is now
commonplace in entry-level systems of today.

I think that's true straight up the line, pricewise. If that ML system
is as good as you say, then I really doubt you could have bought an
equally good system for $10K in 1978.

You couldn't have bought an equally good speaker in 1978, 1988, or 1998 at
ANY PRICE!- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

That is very high praise. I was a long time owner of the ML CLS
speakers. I eventually upgraded to the Sound Lab A3s. So you believe
the CLX substantially out performs Martin Logan's old flagship
speakers, the Statements? Those date back more than 10 years ago. The
Statements and the Sound Lab Majestics are the two best speaker
systems I have ever heard in my biased totally flawed opinion. I have
to say though. The CLXs are a bit ugly. Haven't seen tham in person.
Of course the Sound Lab Majestics are no great beauties either. One
thing I do miss from the ML CLSs are their great looks.

I used a Vandersteen sub with the CLSs and I agree with you that
mating a subwoofer with electrostatic panels is not an easy task. I am
considering upgrading to the Revel B 15 for the Sound Labs. The Sound
Labs go much lower than my old CLSs and I would like to take advantage
of that. The Revel seems to be very flexible in setting the crossover
exactly how and where you want it.

[Arny Krueger]

wrote in message


On Jan 16, 8:24 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message



On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:23:54 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

Details and examples please.

Other than the Martin Logan CLX? I would offer the Soun
Lab Majestics.

That's a dropped (and misspelled) name, not any sort of technical detail.

The Sound Lab Majestic might be a pretty good large full range speaker, but
hardly qualifies as a SOTA subwoofer with response only down to 24 Hz, and
maximum rated SPL out of only 116 dB at some undisclosed frequency that is
probably not 24 Hz.

Subwoofers are particularly easy save big bucks on.
Not and make them meld seamlessly with those
electrostatic panels.

That would not be a generally agreed-upon truth.

I think it is a pretty common opinion in certain circles,
that being owners of electrostatic speakers. I found it
to be very tricky with both my Martin Logan CLSs and my
Sound Lab A3s.

There seems to be some confusion here about anecdotes and urban legends
versus a technical discussion.

I know many other owners of electrostatic
speakers. Not one has ever talked about "easily" mating
their speakers with subwoofers. This is quite anecdotal
but I'm not sure how one "measures" "generally agreed
upon truth."

Below, the author will find but apparently did not comprehend a discussion
of the need to match the dispersal patterns of drivers through their
crossover region. This is the essence of the problem with mating bipolar
drivers with relatively poor bass extension to common subwoofers.

You can't get that kind
of performance for a penny less and you can spend a
whole lot more.
That would be a matter of opinion.

Actually its not. The CLX's are, quite simply, the most
transparent speakers made to date. No other speaker is
as quick, as utterly low in distortion or anywhere near
as revealing.

That would be an opinion, not a widely accepted fact. I
see zero technical evidence to support that claim. I
even went to the M-L web site and found none.

One counterpoint is that the idea of quick or fast
woofers is urban legend and technical double-talk. While
there are some very slow woofers, in general woofer
drivers do not set the speed of their part of the
system. The active crossover is usually the determining
factor. In general, all woofers are too fast and must be
slowed down to do their job effectively.

Not so much urban legend as much as misinterpretation of
the common audiophile usage of the words "slow" and
"fast."

The claim that there was any such misinterpretation is again, and as is
usual for this writer, documented by anything but unsupported assertions on
his part.

It is a figurative description that fits the
aural perception. No different than calling speakers
bright.

Actually there is a big difference - bright means something that is
generally understood and that corresponds to actual physical behaviors of
speakers.

Bright speakers do not emit more light any more
than "fast" bass is literally faster than "slow" bass.

This ignores the well-known usage of "bright" to describe sound with
abundant high frequency response for the past 50 years or more. Equating
bright to light in the context of loudspeakers is pretty strange.

The physical speed of woofers can be physically apparent when they are in
normal operation.

It is not uncommon to find bass performance that lacks
perceived articulation and coherence with the rest of the
audio spectrum. That would be "slow" bass.

If you had read, rather than deleted the balance of my post, you would have
found a technical explanation for all of that.

Here, let me give you a second chance to inform yourself, with a few added
explanations of the meaning of what was said:

The active crossover is usually the determining factor. In general, all
woofers are too fast and must be slowed down to do their job effectively.
This problem may be perceived as a lack of proper articulation or coherence
with the rest of the audio spectrum.

The most important technical key to an effective woofer for use with
planar-style ( speakers is to duplicate the directivity of the upper-range
driver with the subwoofer, as closely as is possible. Failure to match the
directivity lower and upper range drivers can be also be perceived as a
lack of proper articulation or coherence with the rest of the audio
spectrum.

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 08:24:08 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:23:54 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


* The best speakers, for instance, are very expensive.
You cannot get the kind of performance that defines the
state-the-art in speakers at much less than $25 grand.

That would be a matter of opinion. I've seen some
spectacular overpricing, based on probable manufacturing
costs.

I'm not talking about overpriced speakers. I'm talking
about state-of-the-art speakers. They are expensive and
their performance is not replicated at lower price points.

Details and examples please.

My point is that in order for a speaker to approach the sound made by real
instruments playing in real space, they must be large, and move a lot of air.
This is, generally speaking, expensive and can't be accomplished by speakers
in the sub-$10,000 range (at least I don't know of any). There are a number
of other characteristics that are necessary for a speaker to be in this
class, as well. They need drivers which are low in distortion, act as true
pistons over as much of their range as possible. Multi-driver units need for
the drivers to be phase coherent, and the crossovers too. Speaker enclosures
must be inert and non-resonant. This means that the best loudspeakers are
physically large, and if they have enclosures, those enclosures will be quite
heavy and costly to make.

Some examples would be the German MBL 101 X-Tremes ($200K), the Wilson Audio
Alexandria X-2 ($150K), Kharma Grand Exquisite ($220K). There are others,
but I have not heard them. The MBL X-TREME is without a doubt the most
impressive sounding (that's not to say absolutely the BEST sounding, although
they do sound extremely good) loudspeaker system I've ever heard. The power
and visceral quality of the reproduction is mind blowing. The system has SIX
12-inch subwoofers per side and the speaker system weighs as much as a car
(~3500 pounds)! The amount and quality of sound that they produce is simply
staggering, but most people could not accommodate a speaker system that
large, that heavy, or that LOUD. Now, for my own tastes, I prefer the M-L
CLXs, even if I could afford or accommodate the X-TREMES, because they are
more transparent that the MBLs, but they certainly don't convey the power and
weight of a symphony orchestra like the MBLs do. OTOH, the M-Ls don't need to
be played at realistic sound pressure levels all the time to perform as
advertised like the MBLs seem to, either.

It's not like you can duplicate a good $25k system for
$1k, but maybe $5-7k. A lot of system performance is
wrapped up in matching up the room and the speakers.
$25k speakers can sound pretty bad if the room and the
setup aren't right.

Nobody is arguing that a bad room can't ruin a good
speaker, that's irrelevant to the point.

For instance, the best speaker system I've ever heard is
the Martin Logan CLX with a pair of M-L "Depth i"
subwoofers at around $30 grand.

Subwoofers are particularly easy save big bucks on.

Not and make them meld seamlessly with those
electrostatic panels.

That would not be a generally agreed-upon truth.

You can't get that kind
of performance for a penny less and you can spend a
whole lot more.

That would be a matter of opinion.

Actually its not. The CLX's are, quite simply, the most
transparent speakers made to date. No other speaker is as
quick, as utterly low in distortion or anywhere near as
revealing.

That would be an opinion, not a widely accepted fact. I see zero technical
evidence to support that claim. I even went to the M-L web site and found
none.

It's a widely accepted fact to anyone who's heard them. The level of
transparency and low coloration is immediately apparent to anyone who gives
them a listen. You will hear things in your recordings that you have never
heard before, I can guarantee that. They remind me more of a pair of Stax
electrostatic headphones than they do any other speaker I've ever heard. They
sure put my own personal pair of Martin-Logan Vistas to shame in the
transparency department, and I thought THOSE were clean and transparent!

One counterpoint is that the idea of quick or fast woofers is urban legend
and technical double-talk. While there are some very slow woofers, in
general woofer drivers do not set the speed of their part of the system. The
active crossover is usually the determining factor. In general, all woofers
are too fast and must be slowed down to do their job effectively.

The most important technical key to an effective woofer for use with
planar-style (Yes, the MLs are curved, but they are still in the planar
class) speakers is to duplicate the directivity of the upper-range driver
with the subwoofer as closely as possible. Usually, this means making a
bidirectional woofer which is a bit of a contradiction in terms. But, it is
not mission impossible

The M-L CLX does that, The speaker has two disparate electrostatic sections:
the normal curved M-L midrange and high-frequency section which crosses-over
at about 400 Hz, and the flat electrostatic section which extends from there
down to the speaker's bottom end which is about 50 Hz. obviously, both of
these electrostatic elements are bi-polar planar speakers. The servo-powered
"Depth i" subs are a good match for the CLX's but I understand that M-L is
working on a new subwoofer designed specifically for the CLX system.
\

[Sonnova]

On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 11:13:40 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

On Jan 16, 8:24*am, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message







On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:23:54 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


* The best speakers, for instance, are very expensive.
You cannot get the kind of performance that defines the
state-the-art in speakers at much less than $25 grand.

That would be a matter of opinion. *I've seen some
spectacular overpricing, based on probable manufacturing
costs.

I'm not talking about overpriced speakers. I'm talking
about state-of-the-art speakers. They are expensive and
their performance is not replicated at lower price points.

Details and examples please.


Other than the Martin Logan CLX? I would offer the Soun Lab Majestics.



It's not like you can duplicate a good $25k system for
$1k, but maybe $5-7k. A lot of system performance is
wrapped up in matching up the room and the speakers.
$25k speakers can sound pretty bad if the room and the
setup aren't right.
Nobody is arguing that a bad room can't ruin a good
speaker, that's irrelevant to the point.
For instance, the best speaker system I've ever heard is
the Martin Logan CLX with a pair of M-L "Depth i"
subwoofers at around $30 grand.

Subwoofers are particularly easy save big bucks on.
Not and make them meld seamlessly with those
electrostatic panels.

That would not be a generally agreed-upon truth.

I think it is a pretty common opinion in certain circles, that being
owners of electrostatic speakers. I found it to be very tricky with
both my Martin Logan CLSs and my Sound Lab A3s. I know many other
owners of electrostatic speakers. Not one has ever talked about
"easily" mating their speakers with subwoofers. This is quite
anecdotal but I'm not sure how one "measures" "generally agreed upon
truth."

I sure had to work to get my Sunfire subs to work well with my Vistas.
Getting a seamless transition and getting them to sound "all of a piece" is
anything but trivial.

You can't get that kind
of performance for a penny less and you can spend a
whole lot more.
That would be a matter of opinion.
Actually its not. The CLX's are, quite simply, the most
transparent speakers made to date. No other speaker is as
quick, as utterly low in distortion or anywhere near as
revealing.

That would be an opinion, not a widely accepted fact. I see zero technical
evidence to support that claim. I even went to the M-L web site and found
none.

One counterpoint is that the idea of quick or fast woofers is urban legend
and technical double-talk. While there are some very slow woofers, in
general woofer drivers do not set the speed of their part of the system. The
active crossover is usually the determining factor. In general, all woofers
are too fast and must be slowed down to do their job effectively.

Not so much urban legend as much as misinterpretation of the common
audiophile usage of the words "slow" and "fast." It is a figurative
description that fits the aural perception. No different than calling
speakers bright. Bright speakers do not emit more light any more than
"fast" bass is literally faster than "slow" bass. It is not uncommon
to find bass performance that lacks percieved articulation and
coherance with the rest of the audio spectrum. That would be "slow"
bass.

Well put. I agree.

[[email protected]]

On Jan 16, 3:05*pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
wrote in message



On Jan 16, 8:24 am, "Arny Krueger"
wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message


On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:23:54 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):
Details and examples please.
Other than the Martin Logan CLX? I would offer the Soun
Lab Majestics.

That's a dropped (and misspelled) name, not any sort of technical detail.

It's an example. You asked for examples.


The Sound Lab Majestic might be a pretty good large full range speaker, but
hardly qualifies as a SOTA subwoofer with response only down to 24 Hz, and
maximum rated SPL out of only 116 dB at some undisclosed frequency that is
probably not 24 Hz.

It's much better than pretty good IMO. It's the best I have heard from
about 30hz on up. I personally don't have much use for SPLs above
116dB. you are well into levels that will cause physical pain beyond
that. I have no need for that.


Subwoofers are particularly easy save big bucks on.
Not and make them meld seamlessly with those
electrostatic panels.
That would not be a generally agreed-upon truth.
I think it is a pretty common opinion in certain circles,
that being owners of electrostatic speakers. I found it
to be very tricky with both my Martin Logan CLSs and my
Sound Lab A3s.

There seems to be some confusion here about anecdotes and urban legends
versus a technical discussion.

No, no confusion. I must have missed the meeting where it ws stated
that no anecdotes were allowed on RAHE.


I know many other owners of electrostatic
speakers. Not one has ever talked about "easily" mating
their speakers with subwoofers. This is quite anecdotal
but I'm not sure how one "measures" "generally agreed
upon truth."

(Snipped ad hominem content)

This is the essence of the problem with mating bipolar
drivers with relatively poor bass extension to common subwoofers.

There is a lot more to radiation patterns of electrostatic speakers
than just being dipole. That subwoofer certainly does not have the
same radiation pattern as either the Sound Labs or Martin Logans.
Sound Lab already built such a beast. An electrostatic planar
subwoofer. The thing was huge and had serious cancelation issues in
many rooms for obvious reasons. That is one of the things that makes
it so hard for planar speakers to produce dynamic bass. that is why
you need a different radiation pattern at the lowest frequencies.





You can't get that kind
of performance for a penny less and you can spend a
whole lot more.
That would be a matter of opinion.
Actually its not. The CLX's are, quite simply, the most
transparent speakers made to date. No other speaker is
as quick, as utterly low in distortion or anywhere near
as revealing.
That would be an opinion, not a widely accepted fact. I
see zero technical evidence to support that claim. I
even went to the M-L web site and found none.
One counterpoint is that the idea of quick or fast
woofers is urban legend and technical double-talk. While
there are some very slow woofers, in general woofer
drivers do not set the speed of their part of the
system. The active crossover is usually the determining
factor. In general, all woofers are too fast and must be
slowed down to do their job effectively.
Not so much urban legend as much as misinterpretation of
the common audiophile usage of the words "slow" and
"fast."

The claim that there was any such misinterpretation is again, and as is
usual for this writer, documented by anything but unsupported assertions on
his part.

No, it was supported by a logical explination.


It is a figurative description that fits the
aural perception. No different than calling speakers
bright.

Actually there is a big difference - bright means something that is
generally understood and that corresponds to actual physical behaviors of
speakers.

So does "slow bass." The aural perception of slow bass is as
generally well understood by most audiophiles as "bright." and it
clearly corresponds to physical behaviors of speakers. They are bothe
figurative terms commonly used by audiophiles to describe aural
perceptions.


*Bright speakers do not emit more light any more
than "fast" bass is literally faster than "slow" bass.

This ignores the well-known usage of "bright" to describe sound with
abundant high frequency response for the past 50 years or more. Equating
bright to light in the context of loudspeakers is pretty strange.

No it doesn't ignore it. It explains it as figurative language. Both
"bright" and "slow bass" are figurative descriptions of aural
perceptions.


The physical speed of woofers can be physically apparent when they are in
normal operation.

As can be the physical illumination of the tweeters. Doesn't matter.
"Slow bass" is not meant to be taken literally.


It *is not uncommon to find bass performance that lacks
perceived articulation and coherence with the rest of the
*audio spectrum. That would be "slow" bass.

Here, let me give you a second chance to inform yourself, with a few added
explanations of the meaning of what was said:

The active crossover is usually the determining factor. In general, all
woofers are too fast and must be slowed down to do their job effectively.
This problem may be perceived as a lack of *proper articulation or coherence
with the rest of the audio spectrum.

The most important technical key to an effective woofer for use with
planar-style ( speakers is to duplicate the directivity of the upper-range
driver with the subwoofer, as closely as is possible. *Failure to match the
directivity lower and upper range drivers can be also be perceived as *a
lack of *proper articulation or coherence with the rest of the audio
spectrum.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I read it the first time. as I already explained there is more to
radiation patterns than whether or not a speaker is a dipole. You are
not matching the radiation pattern with that subwoofer for the lower
frequencies. If you were you would be having the same problems all
planar speakers have with cancelation at lower frequencies. that is
why you really need a different radiation pattern for the lowest
frequencies in most rooms.

[[email protected]]

Sonnova wrote:

My point is that in order for a speaker to approach the sound made by real instruments playing in real space, they must be large, and move a lot of air.

Once you look at the radiation characteristics of acoustical
instruments you will see that loudspeakers never ever will be capable
of producing anything similar, not even for human singing voice (which
has a peak at about 20 degrees towards the floor). Maybe for some
brass. This is why it doesn't make sense at all to use acoustical
instruments as reference.

This is, generally speaking, expensive and can't be accomplished by speakers in the sub-$10,000 range (at least I don't know of any).

Maybe you should look at the larger studio monitors, such as Klein
+Hummel O410 ($ 9800 at todays exchange rate).

They need drivers which are low in distortion

Here I recommend reading Earl Geddes' AES papers on this topic.

Multi-driver units need for the drivers to be phase coherent

Use FIR filters.

Speaker enclosures must be inert and non-resonant.

Here I recommend Bastyr, "On the Acoustic Radiation from a
Loudspeaker's Cabinet", JAES 2003, p.234

and

Behler, "Investigation of cabinet vibrations in subwoofers",
Proceedings German Annual Conference on Acoustics 2005, Munich, p.395


This means that the best loudspeakers are physically large, and if they have enclosures, those enclosures will be quite
heavy and costly to make.

That's true for passive speakers, in active speakers the front baffle
is just large enough to mount the drivers. I recommend reading Stuart
(Meridian), "The case for active speaker systems", Audio Magazine
1987, Sept., p.64

The amount and quality of sound that they produce is simply
staggering, but most people could not accommodate a speaker system that large, that heavy, or that LOUD.

How do you measure sound and sound quality? My studio monitors produce
123 dB/1m, which is way too loud in my 3700 cuft listening room, but
they are each about as heavy as I am so I don't have any problems
whatsoever in accomodating them.


Klaus

[Steven Sullivan]

Arny Krueger wrote:
"Sonnova" wrote in message

On Thu, 15 Jan 2009 05:23:54 -0800, Arny Krueger wrote
(in article ):

"Sonnova" wrote in message


* The best speakers, for instance, are very expensive.
You cannot get the kind of performance that defines the
state-the-art in speakers at much less than $25 grand.

That would be a matter of opinion. I've seen some
spectacular overpricing, based on probable manufacturing
costs.

I'm not talking about overpriced speakers. I'm talking
about state-of-the-art speakers. They are expensive and
their performance is not replicated at lower price points.

Details and examples please.


Not sure what he means either, but it is a fact that a loudspeaker
that won 'best of the year' in one of the audiophile magazines,
turned out to be one of the worst performing in *blind*
quality rating tests overseen by Sean Olive.

'You can look it up' as the man used to say.



--
-S
We have it in our power to begin the world over again - Thomas Paine

[Sonnova]

On Sat, 17 Jan 2009 08:12:58 -0800, wrote
(in article ):

Sonnova wrote:

My point is that in order for a speaker to approach the sound made by real
instruments playing in real space, they must be large, and move a lot of
air.

Once you look at the radiation characteristics of acoustical
instruments you will see that loudspeakers never ever will be capable
of producing anything similar, not even for human singing voice (which
has a peak at about 20 degrees towards the floor). Maybe for some
brass. This is why it doesn't make sense at all to use acoustical
instruments as reference.

You're comment is irrelevant to the point. We are talking about the PERCEIVED
soundfield and the energy contained therein.

This is, generally speaking, expensive and can't be accomplished by
speakers in the sub-$10,000 range (at least I don't know of any).

Maybe you should look at the larger studio monitors, such as Klein
+Hummel O410 ($ 9800 at todays exchange rate).

That's pretty close to $10,000 and I'm not here to quibble of that last $200.
OTOH, I've never heard a pair of large studio monitors that I thought
sounded like music at ANY price.