AudioBanter.com - View Single Post

(Stewart Pinkerton)
wrote:

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 20:17:05 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

On Fri, 15 Aug 2003 16:43:37 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

(Stewart Pinkerton) wrote:

On 15 Aug 2003 01:45:59 GMT, (Nousaine) wrote:

I've not had access to the Ascent but I'ver tested several ML models
over
the
years and ALL of them had fairly severe frequency response abberations
compared
to lower priced moving coil models.

Ah, you mean some of them *measure* rather oddly, rather than they
sound bad.......

They basically sounded like they measured. Lifeless and lacking in
dynamics at
all frequencies.

That's absolute garbage. They have *exceptional* dynamics, in terms of
their ability to sound clean and clear at low levels, and pray tell
what is the measure of 'lifelessness'?

The Clarity floorstanders have had a fairly severe depression in the 500 Hz
range with a hump centered at 5 kHz on axis and often radically variant
directivity even over a +/- 30-degree listening window.

IOW they just don't perform very well and the sound varies considerably
dependent on listener position.

None of the above of course has *anything* to do with your comments of
'lifeless and lacking in dynamics'.

Their capability of delivering reasonably low distortion SPL at low frequencies
is rather limited. And you're right to question the use of non-precise terms
such as "lifeless."

A flat axial response is about as
useful for encompassing speaker sound, as THD is for amps.

Well you're wrong here. Flat axial response is a prerequisite but not
sufficient by itself to good sound. It is true that flatness and smoothness of
directivity is important too. And the ML models I've used are, in general,
quite deficient here as well.

Without reasonably flat axial response a speaker has little chance of having
smooth off-axial response in any direction. It is true that there are speakers
with good axial response but poor directivity. The MLs seem to share neither
quality in comparison with their competition.

They don't go particularly low and surely don't play loudly and cleanly
enough
for full orchestra.

The Script was somewhat better below 1 kHz but also suffered from the hump
and
output nosedives above 1000 Hz beginning at 15 degrees off axis.

The center, of which I've tested more than once over the past few years is
just
a disaster with a huge swayback at 500 Hz, the upper hump and radically
severe
off-axis lobing patterns.

I never said the centre was any good.......

Agreed. It sucks; even more than half the time.

I reiterate my comments regarding the Ascent, and I add my distaste
for the dull and lifeless sound of the old bextrene-coned KEF models
such as the 104aB - which *measured* excellently!

I'm not commenting on the Ascent because I've not used it.

Clearly, you're not commenting on the KEFs either............

Can't remember that far back. But I seem to recall being impressed with the
104
series. That was the first real bandpass speaker I ever saw.

That's the 104 mkII, a totally different speaker with
polypropylene-coned drivers. KEF stopped using Bextrene precisely
because it *measured* well but sounded flat and lifeless, likely due
to internal losses smothering very low-level inputs.

You are making assertions that may be true but seem, on their face, to be
lacking in support. How do you know they "measured well"? In what regard? And
exactly how do we metric "flat and lifeless"?

The succeeding
polypropylene-coned models measured pretty much the same, but had
noticeably better clarity - albeit with a slight midrange 'squawk'
which became the trademark of polyprop cones.
--

Stewart Pinkerton | Music is Art - Audio is Engineering

It's time to end this squabble. Or turn it into another direction. Toole's
work, while being much more commerically oriented in later years, has shown
that flat frequency response with smooth directivity is the single most
important factor in positive response to loudspeaker sound.

And there has, to the extent of my knowlegde and experience, never been any
research that shows standard electrical measurement techniques have no
relationship to sound quality. It's only the threshold that makes a difference,
just because electrical devices that far under-exceed the threshold of
audibility
it does not mean that they have no relevance.

For example,. give me an amplifier that has flat response into its load, clips
less than 1% of the time, has no audible hum or hiss and no other operating
quirks that has a sound of its own......and you have just made history.

To expand, what does a human "hear." Level, pitch (partial level differences)
and arrival time. IOW loudness, frequency response and arrival time. Yes that
includes bone and tissue conduction. That's it; and all the conventional
measurements aim at detecting small deltas in all this.

While it's true that THD and IMD and AMD are usually far below the threshold of
audibility electrically in electronic devices they are significant factors in
loudspeakers and loudspeaker playback systems over and above the other factors;
BUT flat axial response is number One; Smooth Directivity is a close second and
arguably even number one BUT it never comes without No 1, at least in any
speaker I've used or tested.