Speaker Characteristics and Why? [Archive] - Audio & Video Forums

PDA

View Full Version : Speaker Characteristics and Why?



Pages : [1] 2

atomicAdam
07-16-2010, 01:12 PM
A couple questions I'm curious of ya'lls perspective on....

1) Soundstage - what exact technological qualities in a loudspeaker give a large, clear and defined soundstage? Assuming all other factors are equal..amp, source, room, etc.

2) Detail in the tweeter - is this as much a quality of the amplifier being able to actually amplify and keep clear and send those detailed signals as it is for the tweeter to produce them.

3) Silk tweeters vs. others, opinions?

4) Cabinet vs. woofer size - any opinions on what is more important - or is there some good ratio that manufacturers go off of as a general rule of thumb and then tweak? Anything else about this?

Go!

RGA
07-16-2010, 02:48 PM
A couple questions I'm curious of ya'lls perspective on....

1) Soundstage - what exact technological qualities in a loudspeaker give a large, clear and defined soundstage? Assuming all other factors are equal..amp, source, room, etc.

2) Detail in the tweeter - is this as much a quality of the amplifier being able to actually amplify and keep clear and send those detailed signals as it is for the tweeter to produce them.

I would make the case the most of this occurs in the recording and not the speakers or front end gear. IMO soundstage is quite good across most stereo systems if properly set-up and the recordings are up to the job. And the reason I say this is that I have read several reviews on the bigger brother of my speakers who have claimed opposite results and even within the same review - which indicates that it is the ability to resolve the recording. Speakers that have inherently wide or deep soundstages IMO are speakers that are concerning because certainly all recordings DO NOT have wide and deep stages. Bose 901's have massive stages but a 6 foot piano should not seem 40 feet wide so while it may be "impressive" it isn't accurate. This takes me back to this article http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/viewpoint/0601/audiohell.htm

And the importance of staging to beging with as noted here by a fellow dagogo reviewer http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=398




3) Silk tweeters vs. others, opinions?

All drivers have certain pro's and cons and are chosen to get a desired result. Lynn Olsen wrote an article on which drivers he liked best and why he didn't like others. I think over the years I have come to some correlational preferences but for me the main issue with speakers that use unlike drivers is that they tend not to sound cohesive. But it really depends somehwat on the ability to detect it or place emphasis on it. It's not that a Silk dome is inherently better than a metal dome or that paper is better than Kevlar it has to do with implementation I suspect and also that some makers are very concerned with image and marketing. Sometimes you need exotic materials to advertise. I watched one car advert that went on at length about the stereo, blutooth and other features - didn't mention any driving related subject.



4) Cabinet vs. woofer size - any opinions on what is more important - or is there some good ratio that manufacturers go off of as a general rule of thumb and then tweak? Anything else about this?

Go!

There are some who have strong feelings about single drivers, two ways, three ways and the driver size differentials. For example that a 6 inch woofer is better suited to a 1 inch tweeter than an 8 inch or 10 inch woofer with the reasoning that a 6 inch woofer can better navigate midrange frequencies better than an 8 or 10 - obviously I am in disagreement with that since I have heard no better two way than those using 8 inch and 1 inch - and frankly I haven't heard any that are even remotely close in the midrange - and you also give up a sizable amount of bass. Measurements versus comparison to live instruments and at the seated position are not the same.

As for cabinets manufacturers treat them differently. Harbeth and Audio Note use the Cabinet to reinforce and control frequencies - they use the cabinet in the overall sound of the speakers. Most makers do not - they treat the speaker cabinet as a necessary evil and try and get rid of the cabinet with heavy damping materials so that you can't hear the cabinet. This actually works to certain degrees from a measurements standpoint but IMO they also tend to sound boxy and dead sounding. Which is why so many panel fans rail against boxed loudspeakers. These boxes lack an openness, speed (Transients) and sound like drivers in a box. Panels have no such pitfalls. High sensitive boxed speakers almost always sound fast and dynamic, fast and open, and they cost a lot more to do well but really there is not much substitute if you have the coin IMO. High efficiency tends to overcome some of what panel guys complain about. And of course they have far more bass and scale and take up less room.

JohnMichael
07-16-2010, 03:38 PM
A couple questions I'm curious of ya'lls perspective on....

1) Soundstage - what exact technological qualities in a loudspeaker give a large, clear and defined soundstage? Assuming all other factors are equal..amp, source, room, etc.

2) Detail in the tweeter - is this as much a quality of the amplifier being able to actually amplify and keep clear and send those detailed signals as it is for the tweeter to produce them.

3) Silk tweeters vs. others, opinions?

4) Cabinet vs. woofer size - any opinions on what is more important - or is there some good ratio that manufacturers go off of as a general rule of thumb and then tweak? Anything else about this?

Go!


1. I have always thought from my listening experience that a pinpoint raiating speaker gives the best combination of soundstaging, imaging and depth. That is why I am more of a stand mount two way kind of guy. I do have to admit the extra bass with the RS6's is worth a little less in the imaging department.

2. I am not always sure what people mean by detail in the tweeter. Since we both have the RS6's I will refer to them once again. I find the tweeters detailed but not overly extended or airy. String tones are very nice along with cymbals. If the speakers are not toed in for a good balance they can be bright.

3. My OML 1's are silk and the RS6's are metal. Years ago when I had some Celestion speakers with titanium tweeters. I decided never to buy speakers with metal domes again. I think tweeters have improved much and there are good examples of all. I am excited about hearing some of the new speakers using the Heil Air Motion Transfer drivers. I used to think ribbon tweeters had such a different character from the woofers they were paired with that I need to give them a listen again.

4. Again back to my love of stand mount speakers. The smaller the cabinet the more rigid it can be made with less expense. Of course there is more to it than rigidity. I remember the early Boston Acoustics speakers such as the A200 where the front baffle was wide which if I remember was to act like an infinite baffle. There was quite a distance from the tweeter to any edge so diffraction was unlikely and all the surface area minimized bass cancellation. The proximity of the woofer to the floor also helped with the bass.

Here is an interesting speaker that was designed to give the drivers optimum mounting areas. We tend to like our speakers to be attractive which may not be the best way to support the drivers.

hifitommy
07-16-2010, 04:39 PM
dynamic designs with cones and domes can be excellent for example the rogers (et al) LS3/5As of yore. i had them (and now i have spendor s3/5s) every recording and sometimes on the same record (likely recorded in different rooms).

planars such as maggies (i have MMGs) do a nice job as well with staging. i have also spent much time listening to martin logan reQuests. they all are a bit different but valid.

pinpoint imaging has been criticized as non existent in actuality but i am not so sure that is true. with classical music, the mics are many times placed above the conductors head and hears pretty much what he hears. what better listening position can there be? the conductor certainly must get that kind of soundstaging and needs it to control the sound of the orchestra.

failed designs like the bose 901 can never reproduce the image of an orchestra, only a pseudo floating image that can be detached from the speaker itself but never accurate.

if you want to make the best image in your room (provided you are willing to work at placement of the speakers), get a pair of LS3/5As (there is a pair of them on audiogon right now for about $850) or some dahlquist dq10s to name just two exemplary examples. the LS3/5As are difficult to mate to a sub (which is why i have s3/5s instead) but are uncanny on voice and soundstaging.

dq10s are much easier to add a sub to and shouldnt cost more than $500 or less used. of course, there are many others that image well so youre not really that limited.

Pat D
07-16-2010, 08:48 PM
A couple questions I'm curious of ya'lls perspective on....

1) Soundstage - what exact technological qualities in a loudspeaker give a large, clear and defined soundstage? Assuming all other factors are equal..amp, source, room, etc.

2) Detail in the tweeter - is this as much a quality of the amplifier being able to actually amplify and keep clear and send those detailed signals as it is for the tweeter to produce them.

3) Silk tweeters vs. others, opinions?

4) Cabinet vs. woofer size - any opinions on what is more important - or is there some good ratio that manufacturers go off of as a general rule of thumb and then tweak? Anything else about this?

Go!

1) The simple answer for what performance characteristics a good speaker should have are:

1. Flat frequency response

2. Wide and even off-axis dispersion

3. Low distortion

Dr. Floyd Toole worked for decades testing speakers and listener preferences at the National Research Council in Ottawa and after retiring there continued his work with Harman International. Here is a link to an excellent white paper on speakers:

http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Technologyleadership/Documents/White%20Papers/LoudspeakersandRoomsPt2.pdf

If you think this might be biased, they list a number of scientific publications which may be downloaded, including some by Dr. Toole, though this may be more than you want to know!

http://www.harman.com/EN-US/OurCompany/Technologyleadership/Pages/ScientificPublications.aspx?CategoryID=Scientific% 20Publications

2) Any decent amplifier will have no difficulty amplifying signals in the audible range and well above unless it is driven outside its design limits. The sounds you hear are mostly the result of the program material, the speakers, and the room acoustics and speaker placement.

3) The performance of the tweeter is what is most important. As a consumer, I am not terribly interested in what materials the speakers are made of but how they perform. There are good tweeters with hard domes, soft domes of various materials, and some are not domes but ribbons or other configurations.

4) It is important to cross over the tweeter to the woofer (in a two system) low enough so that the woofer still has a wide radiation up to an beyond the crossover point. The rule of thumb is that a driver maintains a wide dispersion until the wave lengths of the sound become shorter than the diameter of the driver. Unfortunately, a small tweeter driver generally cannot handle too much power or too much excursion, so one does not want to put the crossover too low.

A large woofer will start to beam well before most tweeters kick in. An 11 inch woofer would have reasonable dispersion up to 1000 Hz, which is way too low a crossover point for most small tweeters. In a two way system, the tweeter generally crosses over around 2000 Hz give or take, where there is less musical energy, in a two way system. So, most two way systems have smallish woofer-midrange of about 6-7 inches, so that there can be a smooth crossover between the woofer and tweeter, and the speaker can maintain a wide and even dispersion up until quite high, for even a 1 inch dome tweeter will become progressively more directional in the extreme highs above 12000 Hz.

Feanor
07-17-2010, 05:03 AM
...
pinpoint imaging has been criticized as non existent in actuality but i am not so sure that is true. with classical music, the mics are many times placed above the conductors head and hears pretty much what he hears. what better listening position can there be? the conductor certainly must get that kind of soundstaging and needs it to control the sound of the orchestra.
....
I certainly agree with HFT on this point: whether you get imaging at a live (acoustic) performance depends on the house and your seat in it.

Furthermore even if you rarely heard "pinpoint imaging" in a live concert, this shouldn't condemn speakers that can deliver it since it clearly indicates that they have superior resolution.

Feanor
07-17-2010, 05:31 AM
...

A large woofer will start to beam well before most tweeters kick in. An 11 inch woofer would have reasonable dispersion up to 1000 Hz, which is way too low a crossover point for most small tweeters. In a two way system, the tweeter generally crosses over around 2000 Hz give or take, where there is less musical energy, in a two way system. So, most two way systems have smallish woofer-midrange of about 6-7 inches, so that there can be a smooth crossover between the woofer and tweeter, and the speaker can maintain a wide and even dispersion up until quite high, for even a 1 inch dome tweeter will become progressively more directional in the extreme highs above 12000 Hz.
Totally true. The basic consideration is that driver starts to beam when the effective diameter of its radiation surface is greater than 1/2 the wavelength being reproduced.

Thus a typical, nominally 6.5" woofer, (actually the frame diameter), might have a radiating diameter of as much as 5". Given a typical sound velocity of 1130 feet/second, you can calculate that that speaker will start to beam above about 1350 Hz. What isn't impressive is that such speakers are often combined with tweeters crossed over at 2500 Hz.

Parenthetically, our good buddy RGA has commented for years about "suck out" with B&W models that have high crossover points (like 3500 Hz) from 7" mid/bass drivers, but finds no problem with Audio Note speakers with 8" drivers. Maybe he will enlighten us about this phenomenon.

Mr Peabody
07-17-2010, 06:33 AM
A couple questions I'm curious of ya'lls perspective on....

1) Soundstage - what exact technological qualities in a loudspeaker give a large, clear and defined soundstage? Assuming all other factors are equal..amp, source, room, etc.

> Good question and I can't speculate. I suspect it has much to do with the dispersion capabilities of the mid and tweeter.

2) Detail in the tweeter - is this as much a quality of the amplifier being able to actually amplify and keep clear and send those detailed signals as it is for the tweeter to produce them.

> Both, you need an amp with low distortion, high frequency extension, and a tweeter capable of handling the job of reproducing fine detail. I do NOT submit to all amps sound the same or any amp will do the job, simply not true. And, the source material has to have what you are listening for, as well a source unit capable of retrieving it.

3) Silk tweeters vs. others, opinions?

> I personally am not loyal or against any particular tweeter material. I've heard good and bad. For instance, there are titanium haters but I love a good titanium tweeter, probably some of the best cymbal and brass reproduction I've heard. Some people like ribbons, not my favorite. Sometimes it's more what is done with the material opposed to the material character itself. A lot of it is just personal preference. A certain material is no guarantee of anything.

4) Cabinet vs. woofer size - any opinions on what is more important - or is there some good ratio that manufacturers go off of as a general rule of thumb and then tweak? Anything else about this?

> A lot of the cabinet size depends on ported vs sealed, what port or bass reflex design and what the driver was designed to do. A driver optimized for a sealed enclosure will not usually perform well if stuck in a ported box and vice versa. Back in the day it was large woofers and large cabinets. Now, it's tall slendor boxes with 6" drivers. Some not so good, other brands are able to make the tall speakers sound great through research and technology. Not trying to promote but as an example I am amazed at how well Dynaudio is able to reproduce drums with the big sound they should have. With playing with my Klipsch I am also starting to believe we could be missing something by not having a large woofer. Drum rolls with a large woofer just have a character that most smaller drivers aren't going to be able to reproduce. A sub isn't going to help either because usually they are crossed too low to help where I'm talking about. It seems there is a trend to see how low we can go but don't under estimate the importance of a good mid-bass. I also don't want to dismiss low bass because I am amazed at how well a good sub seems to effect the over all presentation, which to me shows there is something to the harmonics thing.

Go!
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

YBArcam
07-17-2010, 09:42 AM
I kind of agree that soundstaging is mostly in the recording, but just like other things in the recording you need a system that can bring that out. Separation and resolution and detail...I would guess these are all things necessary to convey width and depth to a soundstage.

The amp matters but so does the source. Don't ask me why this is exactly, but my Apollo resolves detail and separates instruments much better than my 650BD. Of course, one would expect it to but it was quite alarming for me to actually hear the difference.

Many say metal domes are too harsh. I had a pair of Energy C-1 speakers that used a metal dome and didn't find then to be harsh at all. But I had a pair of Monitor Audio RS5 that I found to be too much. The conclusion I drew was that if a speaker employs a metal dome, perhaps it's a good idea not to bump up the frequency response in that region. Energy measures quite flat, whereas MA does not.

I think both driver and cabinet size play a role. Floorstanders get their fuller and bassier sound through larger cabinet volume often with relatively small drivers, but I think a larger driver can provide a more effortless sound and of course will move more air. But doesn't the choice of size largely depend on your room? I found the Monitor Audio RX2 to be way too much speaker for my small room, and the rear ports surely didn't help.

RGA
07-17-2010, 12:37 PM
Parenthetically, our good buddy RGA has commented for years about "suck out" with B&W models that have high crossover points (like 3500 Hz) from 7" mid/bass drivers, but finds no problem with Audio Note speakers with 8" drivers. Maybe he will enlighten us about this phenomenon.

Well for me I gave up trying to convince the measurements folks because most of them have not heard the speakers. The AN J was already subject to a level matched blind audition - and it did very well (so did the E) - and that not in corners where they should have been placed. Regardless, most people who have heard a properly set-up AN speaker and Harman speakers choose AN speakers - reviewers who hear most of the speakers out there and have the ears for it clearly do. Compare the representation of speakers sold versus reviewer's purchases and it's not hard to determine which is more preferred. And far more reviewers have auditioned Paradigm that Audio Note.

As for the crossover the AN speakers are not crossed that high. They are hand tested and the drivers AN uses are slightly different from SEAS and thus the crossover points will be slightly different (not to mention there are several driver choices). They usually are crossed in the low 2khz range. Tested and measured from a corner position which is about 9-10 feet from the listening position. They are tested with real word conditions in mind and influenced by the research of Bell Labs and Acoustician, expert speaker designer (most speaker books reference him) and opera house designer L.L. Beranek not to mention Peter Snell. Their research confirms that sound best comes from corner loading, and that this is the "perfect" box shape ratios.

The research seems correct from an auditioning stand point as they sound uniform from room to room (so long as there are corners) there is virtually no side wall issues to deal with. The reflective wave follows the direct wave in under 4ms (which is inaudible) so you get a stage as big as your wall or larger, you get no nasties from side walls and they are far clearer and cleaner than any and all free standing designs that I have heard of remotely sensible cost.

Soundhounds sells Magnepan, Audio Note, Paradigm. All of the sales staff and owner without exception prefer to listen to the Audio Note's. Selling speakers for 35 years listening to all of them set-up by the manufacturers, with the best equipment. Measurements are fine and good and all but I don't listen to measurements - the discussions are always with people who have not heard them or very little. Measurements tell a story, they may even tell you 80% of the story but that 20% can be absolutely critical. For instance the AN E from a corner can produce a "pressure gradient" to use Fred's words which I can not truly account for from measurements - it's there and it is not reproduced from any panel I have heard at any price, nor is it produced from Harman inspired speakers. To me it is the difference between the sensation that instruments are in the room and a box with drivers. The box may have a flatter frequency response but if it does not provide the "real" sensation then it matters not for the ear compensates for minor frequency anomolies - it can fill in those gaps - it can't fill in the pressure. http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=694

Anyway, I am not going down that road. Choose what you wish and be happy. I am. If you want Audio Note's perspective on measurements talk to Peter as he discusses it on youtube http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zEUW3Y7IZRA&feature=related

Feanor
07-17-2010, 01:11 PM
....
As for the crossover the AN speakers are not crossed that high. They are hand tested and the drivers AN uses are slightly different from SEAS and thus the crossover points will be slightly different (not to mention there are several driver choices). They usually are crossed in the low 2khz range. Tested and measured from a corner position which is about 9-10 feet from the listening position. They are tested with real word conditions in mind and influenced by the research of Bell Labs and Acoustician, expert speaker designer (most speaker books reference him) and opera house designer L.L. Beranek not to mention Peter Snell. Their research confirms that sound best comes from corner loading, and that this is the "perfect" box shape ratios.
...
Good stuff, RGA, but it really doesn't answer the question.

Physics dictates that those 8", (say 6+" radiating diameter), woofers are beaming from 1200 Hz to point where the dome tweeters are taking over 2000 Hz. Since the speakers are beaming in this important mid-range segment, corner placement cannot reinforce the sound in this range.

BTW, I'm not saying AN speakers can't sound good but if they do it's despite that they beam in an important frequency range.

JohnMichael
07-17-2010, 03:27 PM
I would love to hear the Esoteric speakers using the magnesium woofers and tweeters. I have read very good reviews and wonder if I like the RS6's because of the tweeters and woofers are all metal. I seem to be sensitive to changes in materials as music is produced by multiple drivers. This was one of my complaints about The Dahlquist DQ 10 back in the days. I am not saying it is a bad speaker just not for me. Other speakers with multiple crossover points have caused audible problems for me.


The OML 1's with their small baffle provide very good imaging and soundstaging.

RGA
07-17-2010, 04:31 PM
Good stuff, RGA, but it really doesn't answer the question.

Physics dictates that those 8", (say 6+" radiating diameter), woofers are beaming from 1200 Hz to point where the dome tweeters are taking over 2000 Hz. Since the speakers are beaming in this important mid-range segment, corner placement cannot reinforce the sound in this range.

BTW, I'm not saying AN speakers can't sound good but if they do it's despite that they beam in an important frequency range.

I don't see the point of your argument. You can't hear any beaming and of all the two way speakers I have heard in the last 20 years the speakers are easily the least "directional" of the lot of them. If they beamed they would be directional - they're not.

JohnMichael
07-17-2010, 05:23 PM
Having owned a pair of Smaller Advents I was always impressed by Henry Kloss' design for the Large Advent. He used a combination of a smaller cone on a larger frame so the woofer could make large excursions. This combined with a tweeter that crossed over at 1,000 hz allowed the tweeter to take over befor serious beaming could result. Larger woofers begin to beam when crossed over too high.

JohnMichael
07-17-2010, 05:54 PM
Another example of beaming is the two pair of speakers I currently own. Both have 6 1/2 inch woofers and 1 inch tweeters. The OML1's crossed over about 2,000hz and the RS6 are crossed over about 3,000hz. I find the RS6's require more toe-in than the OML1's for the same mid/upper frequency balance. An obvious sign of beaming.

YBArcam
07-17-2010, 07:08 PM
I would love to try out AN-K speakers, but they are double my current price point. Once I save up I will definitely make time to listen to them. I watched the video of Peter Qvortrup and I have to admit that the "less is more" way of thinking just seems to make a lot of sense and I think I'm hearing that in my own personal listening.

As for the Studio 20, which is looking like the front runner to be my next speaker, it's crossed over at 2kHz, and uses the same material for both the woofer and tweeter (and the port too), which is pure aluminum. So I guess this is a good thing. It uses a 2nd order crossover, which I've read in UHF isn't the best, but can be used successfully if executed right.

I've always toed my speakers in, if just to tighten up the image. Most speakers in my experience sound better this way. When you guys say beaming, do you mean that certain frequencies are fired in a straight line and do not disperse the way the rest of the audio band does?

Mr Peabody
07-17-2010, 08:44 PM
You all got me wondering talking about crossover points. I was thinking 2k puts a lot on a tweeter. Come to find out my t2.5 crosses over at 1600Hz. FWIW I have my speakers pointing forward. The only speaker I've found that I prefer toe in is the Klipsch.

poppachubby
07-18-2010, 02:10 AM
You all got me wondering talking about crossover points. I was thinking 2k puts a lot on a tweeter. Come to find out my t2.5 crosses over at 1600Hz. FWIW I have my speakers pointing forward. The only speaker I've found that I prefer toe in is the Klipsch.

My Missions have no toe in and as a result, off axis listening sounds good. I find that toe in definitely increases the soundstage and in some cases, can create marvelous effects with certain recordings.

My Sound Dynamics are on either side of a corner. This came as a necessity due to space. One day I decided to toe them in and the result was incredible. There was a real 3D soundstage that went WAY left and right of the speakers. For three piece jazz the seperation was mind boggling, and the players truly did sound like they were in front of me.

I have done alot of reading on room placement and such. The bottom line is you must get out of your seat and try. Make use of corners and also damping throughout the room.

As for metal tweeters, my Sound Dynamics have those. Infact, they are very sought after. There is a classic Energy speaker for which they are a drop in, as well as replacing the Sound Dynamics themselves. My experience has been that amplification DOES matter. I have had them on certain combos in which they sound awful. Presently a vintage SX-650 gives them a wonderful sound.

That's the thing about metal dome, if you can find the right combo, WATCH OUT!! They are simply untouchable and convey the highs in a super fun yet realistic manner. I love 'em.

poppachubby
07-18-2010, 02:17 AM
Well for me I gave up trying to convince the measurements folks because most of them have not heard the speakers. The AN J was already subject to a level matched blind audition - and it did very well (so did the E) - and that not in corners where they should have been placed. Regardless, most people who have heard a properly set-up AN speaker and Harman speakers choose AN speakers - reviewers who hear most of the speakers out there and have the ears for it clearly do. Compare the representation of speakers sold versus reviewer's purchases and it's not hard to determine which is more preferred. And far more reviewers have auditioned Paradigm that Audio Note.


Rich I don't want to feed into Feanor's point, but I think you recall how my AN experience went. If there is one brand I want to hear again, it's them.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4027/4570054206_e6084a8670.jpg

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4010/4569417973_a51304d9cc.jpg

Mr Peabody
07-18-2010, 05:37 AM
I realize speaker placement depends on the speaker but it's been my experience when toeing in the bass seems to lose detail or become a bit murky or booming. The Dyn's truly disappear, if you have your eyes close you couldn't tell where they were at and depending on the recording the sound stage typically goes beyond their borders. Toeing in may also have to do with how well a speaker disperses sound. Toeing in may be less necessary the better the dispersion. The Klipsch with the horns needed toed in, limited dispersion compared to the other speakers I've experienced.

3LB
07-18-2010, 09:30 AM
any speaker's quality is in the ear of the beholder. I tend to shy away from speakers that employ multi-stage crossovers, not to mention various other circuits to compensate baffle step correction, zobel networks, attenuation networks... Some of the best home systems I've heard involved multi-amping, much like car systems.

I like the wideband driver approach, in which a single driver covers as wide a range as possible (limited number of single drivers do this well), with a supertweeter crossed over where a single driver begins to become peaky (usually around 12khz) and a powered sub to cover the lowest frequencies.

You gotta hear a good single driver concept speaker at least once in your life, if you haven't.

frenchmon
07-18-2010, 09:48 AM
I realize speaker placement depends on the speaker but it's been my experience when toeing in the bass seems to lose detail or become a bit murky or booming...... Toeing in may also have to do with how well a speaker disperses sound. Toeing in may be less necessary the better the dispersion. The Klipsch with the horns needed toed in, limited dispersion compared to the other speakers I've experienced.

Canton's need no toe in and the Canton literature tells you not to toe them in. Cantons give a huge sound stage and fills a room with sound...very good dispersion. I have played with toe in with Cantons...a very slight toe in at that, and find the sound stage shrinking but a more intense sound stage. Cantons don't beam at all.

Pat D
07-18-2010, 10:16 AM
I don't see the point of your argument. You can't hear any beaming and of all the two way speakers I have heard in the last 20 years the speakers are easily the least "directional" of the lot of them. If they beamed they would be directional - they're not.

Oh come now, RGA! The measurements we have of the AN-E Lexus Signature ($12,200) in Stereophile show it has a dip in the upper midrange lower treble and some unneveness off axis. This is quite clear in the measurements and it certainly has audible effects, though they can be ameliorated to some degree by careful placement and toe-in.

http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/506an/index4.html

Art Dudley noted that the left hand notes of the piano sounded louder than they should have, which the humpiness from about 150-550 Hz indicates. John Atkinson made some comments on the measurements and his listening:

"It didn't measure as badly as I expected it to, its designer obviously having worked hard to produce a neutral balance in-room. But I was disappointed by the very lively cabinet and by the discontinuity at the top of the woofer passband, the effects of both of which I could hear with the sample that I measured."

Here is what Art Dudley said about the 'lower' priced AN-E/SPe HE ($6900), which he didn't mention in his earlier review of the AN-E Lexus Signature:

"But the woofer's size—or, more to the point, the challenge of crossing over an 8" driver to a very small tweeter while maintaining flat lower-treble response throughout the entire listening area—made itself known as a persistent response dip centered at 2kHz. Sure enough, every Audio Note AN-E speaker I've tried has made voices and some instruments sound a little dark and thick through a portion of their range."

http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/506an/index5.html

OK, so those things don't bother you and Art Dudley (who at least noticed them!), but the measurements are simply not good enough for me to consider such speakers.

bobsticks
07-18-2010, 12:51 PM
Oh come now, RGA! The measurements we have of the AN-E Lexus Signature ($12,200) in Stereophile show it has a dip in the upper midrange lower treble and some unneveness off axis. This is quite clear in the measurements and it certainly has audible effects, though they can be ameliorated to some degree by careful placement and toe-in.

http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/506an/index4.html

Art Dudley noted that the left hand notes of the piano sounded louder than they should have, which the humpiness from about 150-550 Hz indicates. John Atkinson made some comments on the measurements and his listening:

"It didn't measure as badly as I expected it to, its designer obviously having worked hard to produce a neutral balance in-room. But I was disappointed by the very lively cabinet and by the discontinuity at the top of the woofer passband, the effects of both of which I could hear with the sample that I measured."

Here is what Art Dudley said about the 'lower' priced AN-E/SPe HE ($6900), which he didn't mention in his earlier review of the AN-E Lexus Signature:

"But the woofer's size—or, more to the point, the challenge of crossing over an 8" driver to a very small tweeter while maintaining flat lower-treble response throughout the entire listening area—made itself known as a persistent response dip centered at 2kHz. Sure enough, every Audio Note AN-E speaker I've tried has made voices and some instruments sound a little dark and thick through a portion of their range."

http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/506an/index5.html

OK, so those things don't bother you and Art Dudley (who at least noticed them!), but the measurements are simply not good enough for me to consider such speakers.


So is that how RGA is able to enjoy "warm" sounding music on "neutral" gear? :D

poppachubby
07-18-2010, 01:11 PM
Canton's need no toe in and the Canton literature tells you not to toe them in. Cantons give a huge sound stage and fills a room with sound...very good dispersion. I have played with toe in with Cantons...a very slight toe in at that, and find the sound stage shrinking but a more intense sound stage. Cantons don't beam at all.

Mission is the same thing. The seller had the original owner's manual and 700 series sales brochure. They rec NO toe in.

RGA
07-18-2010, 01:28 PM
Patd

Have you ever heard them? Have you ever heard a speaker that you can say sounds EXACTLY the same as them that you have concluded to be crossed off your list.

If you think you know how they sound because you read measurements of a designed for corner speaker to be heard at the listening chair based off a measurement where the speaker is 1 and 2 meters away average placed in the middle of the room then you're deluding yourself.

The speaker has a deliberate design to take advantage of corner rear wall and floor reinforcement. Those are "calculated into" the design. Two Stereophile writers own them and the third claimed a room with the E was the best he had ever heard (Wes Phillips). Did any of them buy the Paradigms? They're great so long as someone else buys them.

Sorry PatD - I understand looking at measurements but at some point experience has to come into play, and when a speaker is very widely considered to be a standout performer it is simply ridiculous to say - well it has a dip so I'm not going to listen to it because I've heard two other speakers with a dip and didn't like them. Especially when it brings a FAR greater sense of scale and macro and micro dynamics, clarity, resolution, bass, cohesiveness than an S2.

And you can claim that Art has idiosyncratic tastes but that would mean a LOT of reviewers have the exact same idiosyncratic tastes which seems odd to me. There are a staggering number of reviewers who own Audio Note speakers (which is shocking considering that they are tiny blip of a company compared to the big boys. Wes Phillips (claimed not long ago that they were in a system he felt was the best sound he'd ever heard, Peter Van Wellenswaard (owns), most of the writers at Dagogo, at least one writer at enjoythemusic.com, 6moons, Audiophile in Germany, and Hi-fi Choice which uses them as a reference to evaluate other gear.

I could see not making the time for some unusual measuring speakers that don't get that kind of press and acclaim and have not stood the test of time but my bias or not, I think you are only doing yourself a disservice by making an assumption because you think measurements tell 100% of the truth.

The issues in the measurements are a little noticeable although less on their equipment and less if they're properly positioned in corners - no speaker is perfect - except that the E is well balanced at the listening position where people listen. They also tend to be an end of the road product. People trade their Paradigms in for Audio Notes - not the other way around. I'm not saying everyone will agree. Jack Roberts likes the Teresonic single drivers over the Audio Notes but there is a room factor to consider and the Ingeniums are unbelievably good speakers. I was mightily impressed by a single driver that could cover the range it does. And while it's always fun to take snippets of quotes to note that a speaker like the AN E has a weakness - it should also be noted that the budget conscious Art Dudley did accept the weakness in the E and purchased them. He could have spent far less and bought an S2 or any other pile of 6 inch two way standmounts for less money. Art Dudley the guy who is always looking to save a buck obviously felt those other speakers had a LOT more shortcomings than the AN E.

Taking quotes of the S2 is easy too:

This is a little closer to the sidewalls than I use for full-range speakers, which adds some needed boundary reinforcement to the midbass with minimonitors. Even then, the Reference Signature S2 sounded light in overall weight

That means lacks bass weight

Occasionally I thought I noticed a touch of "gruffness" in the S2's presentation of bass instruments,

Grainy

But a 32Hz sinewave, even at modest volumes, produced some audible "doubling" (the addition of second-harmonic distortion). I never heard any wind noise emanating from the front-mounted port, by the way, but what I did hear from both speakers when I played the half-step–spaced toneburst track on Editor's Choice was some rattling of the grille between 90Hz and 160Hz. I fixed this with the strategic application of some Blu-Tack, but given that the grilles are so important to producing the correct treble balance, I was disappointed by this.

That means badly built.

As the toneburst went through the upper notes in the 512–1024Hz octave, each toneburst could be heard to acquire a very slight "shadow" at a different pitch. The same thing happened an octave lower, but with the shadow at the higher-pitched tone.

Shadow = ringing.

Compared with the Dynaudio Special 25, the Signature S2's treble balance was a little on the forward side,

Another term for bright - a second read between the lines indicator of bright.

"The voices on Vaughan Williams' Serenade to Music (with the Corydon Singers and the ECO directed by Matthew Best, Hyperion CDA66420) were presented slightly in front of the speaker plane, and the work's climaxes sounded edgier than I was anticipating, even given this CD's fairly early digital provenance (it was recorded in 1990). In general, the Signature S2s were better suited to good modern classical CDs, such as Keith Johnson's recording of Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade with the London Philharmonic under José Serebrier (Reference RR-89CD), than to aged ones suffering from analog tape distortion and noise modulation, such as the 1962 performance of Delius' La Calinda from the Philharmonia under George Weldon (EMI Studio 7 69534 2)—much as I love the latter on musical grounds."

Read between the lines - most of your recordings will have to be thrown in the garbage because these speakers only sound good with certain recordings - in other words BRIGHT.

Thunderous? Well, up to a point, given the Signature S2's relatively diminutive size. No one who rates dynamic range as a major priority will be looking for a minimonitor as a first choice. In the tradition of the BBC LS3/5a, this Canadian speaker is not about loudness but about the ability to preserve subtleties and to maximize the purity of instrumental colors. Even so, I found a hardness that developed in the mid-treble to be the ultimate speed limit on loudness, rather than the fuzz and blurring that resulted from low-frequency overdrive.

Dynamically inept. Will compress badly and can't play bass at realistic levels. And they will get hard (which means bright - again with the read between the lines on brightness). Perhaps they're best suited for people close to 60 who need added ringing to make out the treble due to loss of HF hearing over the years.


And looking at the measurements

The port response rolls off smoothly above 50Hz, but I was alarmed to see a high-Q resonance present just above 800Hz. This aberration is severe enough to create a suckout at the same frequency in the woofer's response.

Suckout in a critical region. Far from perfect me thinks

the woofer's output shows slightly more of a boost in the upper bass in fig.3 than I expected from the nearfield measurement technique, implying a slightly underdamped bass alignment that, as I heard, will tend to compensate for the small speaker's lack of low bass.

Add a midbaass hump to cover for a lack of real bass. Common but nevertheless inaccurate.

The tweeter comes in with a third-order slope and is flat for the first octave and a half in its passband, but has a shelved-up response in its top octave, broken up by some interference effects.

Shelved up responses = Bright - here it is again.

However, a slight suckout can still be seen at 800Hz—the frequency of the resonant mode in the port's output—and the tweeter is slightly too high in level compared with the speaker's midrange level.

Yes the usual boom and sizzle effect of metal tweeters coupled with non complimentary woofers. You always will hear the tweeter independent of the woofer and it will always be noticeable. = Bright.

slight excesses of upper-bass and mid-treble energy apparent. The former goes some way toward compensating for the S2's lack of mid- and low-bass output, while the latter is not unexpected, given my feelings about the speaker's slightly forward treble balance.

boom and sizzle = bright. A lack of low mid and low bass combined with forward treble. I am not surprised no one there buys them.

I dunno. But they don't look totally without weaknesses Pat. I am sure the humongous levels of advertising didn't hurt Paradigm here to get a good review but reading between the lines - JA got his warnings in safely.

To Pat and Poppachubby
I would ask that you take the time at some point to have a quality long listen at some point. I was roundly unimpressed with the AN E when I first heard them. I don't know where you live but there is an Audio Show in San Franciso at the end of the month run by Dagogo. Something like $10 for a 3 day pass (I won't be able to make it unless I can swing a cheap flight). Bring your own music because depending who runs the room (and this applies to all the rooms) they tend to put on soft classical pieces without really giving a general sense of what a system can do. Unfortunately, Dave Cope who runs most of the shows has tinnitus and he was running the last show. This can be an advantage because he can leave you alone with it while he goes out in the hall. At CES he had to leave the room when Peter would put the crazy metal on at stupid levels. If it can't do metal it's not a good speaker - PERIOD. And virtually every standmount is so dynamically challenged that they compress badly - if they compress badly on that why does anyone think they can suddenly handle Beethoven's 9th which requires "more."

To a degree I understand that exhibitors play soft classical or Diana Krall all day because you can't expect the exhibitor to play Slayer at 100db all day for 3 days. But IMO people walk in and will listen to whatever is playing for 5-15 minutes make a decision and leave. If you are playing a mediocre recording during those 15 minutes then people presume it's the stereo. Audio Note is one of the very very very few exhibitors that BRING and PLAY lousy recordings with a lot of noise because they simply play music they like. Obviously, put up against a demo from another maker who plays the same well recorded and not challenging Krall album 102 times over and over covers their butt a lot better. Always put your own music on and turn the volume knob. The exhibitors have set it up to how they're suppose to be set-up (positioning wise). They are using the equipment that is supposed to be used, they have taken care of room treatments as best as the room can handle.

All quotes from http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/705paradigm/

poppachubby
07-18-2010, 02:21 PM
Yes Rich as I said, I want to hear them again. Remember, I have indeed heard them. I also could care less what Stereophile think about anyhting.

frenchmon
07-18-2010, 04:27 PM
Patd

Have you ever heard them? Have you ever heard a speaker that you can say sounds EXACTLY the same as them that you have concluded to be crossed off your list.

If you think you know how they sound because you read measurements of a designed for corner speaker to be heard at the listening chair based off a measurement where the speaker is 1 and 2 meters away average placed in the middle of the room then you're deluding yourself.

The speaker has a deliberate design to take advantage of corner rear wall and floor reinforcement. Those are "calculated into" the design. Two Stereophile writers own them and the third claimed a room with the E was the best he had ever heard (Wes Phillips). Did any of them buy the Paradigms? They're great so long as someone else buys them.

Sorry PatD - I understand looking at measurements but at some point experience has to come into play, and when a speaker is very widely considered to be a standout performer it is simply ridiculous to say - well it has a dip so I'm not going to listen to it because I've heard two other speakers with a dip and didn't like them. Especially when it brings a FAR greater sense of scale and macro and micro dynamics, clarity, resolution, bass, cohesiveness than an S2.

And you can claim that Art has idiosyncratic tastes but that would mean a LOT of reviewers have the exact same idiosyncratic tastes which seems odd to me. There are a staggering number of reviewers who own Audio Note speakers (which is shocking considering that they are tiny blip of a company compared to the big boys. Wes Phillips (claimed not long ago that they were in a system he felt was the best sound he'd ever heard, Peter Van Wellenswaard (owns), most of the writers at Dagogo, at least one writer at enjoythemusic.com, 6moons, Audiophile in Germany, and Hi-fi Choice which uses them as a reference to evaluate other gear.

I could see not making the time for some unusual measuring speakers that don't get that kind of press and acclaim and have not stood the test of time but my bias or not, I think you are only doing yourself a disservice by making an assumption because you think measurements tell 100% of the truth.

The issues in the measurements are a little noticeable although less on their equipment and less if they're properly positioned in corners - no speaker is perfect - except that the E is well balanced at the listening position where people listen. They also tend to be an end of the road product. People trade their Paradigms in for Audio Notes - not the other way around. I'm not saying everyone will agree. Jack Roberts likes the Teresonic single drivers over the Audio Notes but there is a room factor to consider and the Ingeniums are unbelievably good speakers. I was mightily impressed by a single driver that could cover the range it does. And while it's always fun to take snippets of quotes to note that a speaker like the AN E has a weakness - it should also be noted that the budget conscious Art Dudley did accept the weakness in the E and purchased them. He could have spent far less and bought an S2 or any other pile of 6 inch two way standmounts for less money. Art Dudley the guy who is always looking to save a buck obviously felt those other speakers had a LOT more shortcomings than the AN E.

Taking quotes of the S2 is easy too:

This is a little closer to the sidewalls than I use for full-range speakers, which adds some needed boundary reinforcement to the midbass with minimonitors. Even then, the Reference Signature S2 sounded light in overall weight

That means lacks bass weight

Occasionally I thought I noticed a touch of "gruffness" in the S2's presentation of bass instruments,

Grainy

But a 32Hz sinewave, even at modest volumes, produced some audible "doubling" (the addition of second-harmonic distortion). I never heard any wind noise emanating from the front-mounted port, by the way, but what I did hear from both speakers when I played the half-step–spaced toneburst track on Editor's Choice was some rattling of the grille between 90Hz and 160Hz. I fixed this with the strategic application of some Blu-Tack, but given that the grilles are so important to producing the correct treble balance, I was disappointed by this.

That means badly built.

As the toneburst went through the upper notes in the 512–1024Hz octave, each toneburst could be heard to acquire a very slight "shadow" at a different pitch. The same thing happened an octave lower, but with the shadow at the higher-pitched tone.

Shadow = ringing.

Compared with the Dynaudio Special 25, the Signature S2's treble balance was a little on the forward side,

Another term for bright - a second read between the lines indicator of bright.

"The voices on Vaughan Williams' Serenade to Music (with the Corydon Singers and the ECO directed by Matthew Best, Hyperion CDA66420) were presented slightly in front of the speaker plane, and the work's climaxes sounded edgier than I was anticipating, even given this CD's fairly early digital provenance (it was recorded in 1990). In general, the Signature S2s were better suited to good modern classical CDs, such as Keith Johnson's recording of Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade with the London Philharmonic under José Serebrier (Reference RR-89CD), than to aged ones suffering from analog tape distortion and noise modulation, such as the 1962 performance of Delius' La Calinda from the Philharmonia under George Weldon (EMI Studio 7 69534 2)—much as I love the latter on musical grounds."

Read between the lines - most of your recordings will have to be thrown in the garbage because these speakers only sound good with certain recordings - in other words BRIGHT.

Thunderous? Well, up to a point, given the Signature S2's relatively diminutive size. No one who rates dynamic range as a major priority will be looking for a minimonitor as a first choice. In the tradition of the BBC LS3/5a, this Canadian speaker is not about loudness but about the ability to preserve subtleties and to maximize the purity of instrumental colors. Even so, I found a hardness that developed in the mid-treble to be the ultimate speed limit on loudness, rather than the fuzz and blurring that resulted from low-frequency overdrive.

Dynamically inept. Will compress badly and can't play bass at realistic levels. And they will get hard (which means bright - again with the read between the lines on brightness). Perhaps they're best suited for people close to 60 who need added ringing to make out the treble due to loss of HF hearing over the years.


And looking at the measurements

The port response rolls off smoothly above 50Hz, but I was alarmed to see a high-Q resonance present just above 800Hz. This aberration is severe enough to create a suckout at the same frequency in the woofer's response.

Suckout in a critical region. Far from perfect me thinks

the woofer's output shows slightly more of a boost in the upper bass in fig.3 than I expected from the nearfield measurement technique, implying a slightly underdamped bass alignment that, as I heard, will tend to compensate for the small speaker's lack of low bass.

Add a midbaass hump to cover for a lack of real bass. Common but nevertheless inaccurate.

The tweeter comes in with a third-order slope and is flat for the first octave and a half in its passband, but has a shelved-up response in its top octave, broken up by some interference effects.

Shelved up responses = Bright - here it is again.

However, a slight suckout can still be seen at 800Hz—the frequency of the resonant mode in the port's output—and the tweeter is slightly too high in level compared with the speaker's midrange level.

Yes the usual boom and sizzle effect of metal tweeters coupled with non complimentary woofers. You always will hear the tweeter independent of the woofer and it will always be noticeable. = Bright.

slight excesses of upper-bass and mid-treble energy apparent. The former goes some way toward compensating for the S2's lack of mid- and low-bass output, while the latter is not unexpected, given my feelings about the speaker's slightly forward treble balance.

boom and sizzle = bright. A lack of low mid and low bass combined with forward treble. I am not surprised no one there buys them.

I dunno. But they don't look totally without weaknesses Pat. I am sure the humongous levels of advertising didn't hurt Paradigm here to get a good review but reading between the lines - JA got his warnings in safely.

To Pat and Poppachubby
I would ask that you take the time at some point to have a quality long listen at some point. I was roundly unimpressed with the AN E when I first heard them. I don't know where you live but there is an Audio Show in San Franciso at the end of the month run by Dagogo. Something like $10 for a 3 day pass (I won't be able to make it unless I can swing a cheap flight). Bring your own music because depending who runs the room (and this applies to all the rooms) they tend to put on soft classical pieces without really giving a general sense of what a system can do. Unfortunately, Dave Cope who runs most of the shows has tinnitus and he was running the last show. This can be an advantage because he can leave you alone with it while he goes out in the hall. At CES he had to leave the room when Peter would put the crazy metal on at stupid levels. If it can't do metal it's not a good speaker - PERIOD. And virtually every standmount is so dynamically challenged that they compress badly - if they compress badly on that why does anyone think they can suddenly handle Beethoven's 9th which requires "more."

To a degree I understand that exhibitors play soft classical or Diana Krall all day because you can't expect the exhibitor to play Slayer at 100db all day for 3 days. But IMO people walk in and will listen to whatever is playing for 5-15 minutes make a decision and leave. If you are playing a mediocre recording during those 15 minutes then people presume it's the stereo. Audio Note is one of the very very very few exhibitors that BRING and PLAY lousy recordings with a lot of noise because they simply play music they like. Obviously, put up against a demo from another maker who plays the same well recorded and not challenging Krall album 102 times over and over covers their butt a lot better. Always put your own music on and turn the volume knob. The exhibitors have set it up to how they're suppose to be set-up (positioning wise). They are using the equipment that is supposed to be used, they have taken care of room treatments as best as the room can handle.

All quotes from http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/705paradigm/


RGA...you make the Signiture S2 sound worse than John Atkinson or the report intended. Lets get a little context because you have used his words out of context a little for your perspective on Audio Note Speakers.

To be fair RGA, I think you should have noted the fact that the article was written in 2005, the very first year the Reference Signiture S2 came to market. In 5 years I am sure Paradigm has cleared up the problems of there Reference speakers, but as we all know, no speaker is perfect, not even Audio Note. You should have also mentioned up until that point, Paradigm had never built a speaker for the high end speaker market, Up until then, The Studio Reference 100 was the best they offered in the top of the mid fi speaker market.

And you never said any good points that JA had to say about the new speaker that was just hitting the market.

At best you have painted a picture of Paradigm that I think has been unfairly ascribed to them because of you and your party bent towards AN speakers.

This is how JA ended the review....it would have been wonderful if you had mentioned it.

"Summing up
If you value ultimate loudness and bass extension, then you should check out Paradigm's similarly priced, more utilitarian-styled Reference Studio/100 v.3. But if you're willing to sacrifice those attributes in favor of nuanced higher-frequency purity and the ability to develop a stable, detailed soundstage, Paradigm's Reference Signature S2 might well be for you, particularly if you have a smallish room. Drop-dead gorgeous at an equally attractive price, with faults that are minor and strengths that are major, the S2 comes highly recommended."

Below are a few comments you made......I added your quotes within the context.

"Sound
I set up the Paradigms on 24" Celestion stands, the central pillars of which were filled with a mix of sand and lead shot, in the positions where the Dynaudio Special 25 that I reviewed in June had worked well. bass This is a little closer to the sidewalls than I use for full-range speakers, which adds some needed boundary reinforcement to the midwith minimonitors. Even then, the Reference Signature S2 sounded light in overall weight. However, its rich upper-bass register meant that only occasionally did I feel that I was being shortchanged on low frequencies. The Fender bass on the channel-identification tracks on my Editor's Choice CD (Stereophile STPH016-2) had a reasonably full-bodied tone, but with a slight accentuation of each note's leading edge."


"Occasionally I thought I noticed a touch of "gruffness" in the S2's presentation of bass instruments, but provided the playback level was not extreme—this is a small speaker, after all—this was never a serious issue in my auditioning. "


"This track also revealed some slight problems with midrange clarity. I created this test signal, which steps a sinewave burst from 32Hz to 4kHz and back again for each channel individually, because it quickly reveals when a speaker's drive-units have problems speaking with a single voice. As the toneburst went through the upper notes in the 512–1024Hz octave, each toneburst could be heard to acquire a very slight "shadow" at a different pitch. The same thing happened an octave lower, but with the shadow at the higher-pitched tone. I wasn't sure if I could consistently hear anything like this effect when listening to music; with spectrally pure sounds, however, such as the clarinet on my Mosaic CD (Stereophile STPH015-2), the instrument occasionally sounded a little more sour in intonation than I was anticipating.

JohnMichael
07-18-2010, 05:09 PM
Yes Rich as I said, I want to hear them again. Remember, I have indeed heard them. I also could care less what Stereophile think about anyhting.



Poppachubby you should have heard the Snell Type E that the AN E was based on as well as the other Snell speakers with the same letter designations. I really liked the Snells. My neighbor had the Snell Type A's which I listened to as much as I could.

The photo shows a different woofer since the original had a foam surround.

RGA
07-18-2010, 05:18 PM
Frenchmon

I mentioned that anyone can take quotes from a review to create a negative picture which is precisely what PatD did. So I took his loudspeaker and illustrated my point.

What PatD does not get is that ALL speakers are inaccurate. There is not perfectly accurate loudspeaker which is why designers - you know designers - the people with engineering backgrounds can't even decide whether or not to use a dynamic driver or ribbon, or electrostat, whether to house them in a box or have an open baffle whether to have one driver or 2 or 10 drivers, whether to go active or passive, whether corner load, horn load etc.

To know whether something is accurate (something is either 100% accurate or it isn't) then you MUST have an actual reference point. In other words if every engineer on the planet past present and future who agree upon ONE set of loudspeakers as being "perfectly" accurate ONLY then can you possibly be able to make comparisons and say speaker X is 89% accurate and speaker Y is 23% accurate.

We have as Peter eloquently noted an elephant in a room with one light above and we are looking at the shadows trying to determine what the Elephant looks like. We are trying to piece back together what it is we're looking at.

If we accept the fact that they're all inaccurate then it comes down to the two things sitting on the side of your head. Dynamics timbre tone and "naturalness" are the lifeblood of music. Frequency response while important changes dramatically in room, your ears forgive frequency issues but can't put dynamics back or bass or pressure. And the S2 is not perfect in terms of frequency - not even remotely so. So why take a theoretical better response for actual in room results?

As for coming out with a new version every 4 years - IMO that is convenient. New product buzz 6 months before release. Product hits market and makes rounds through the review press for 2 years. Sales then plateau in the 3 and 1/2 year range and then it's suddenly time to get the hype machine geared up for the next version. Version 5 is out now right? Same type of cabinet - some new driver to advertise and it will be doubtful if any of them are as good as Version 2 - version 3 and 4 were much worse and cost more.

YBArcam
07-18-2010, 06:00 PM
I think it's still v.2 for the Signature line, it's v.5 for the Studio line. Cabinets are all new btw, curved rather than square. IMO there is nothing wrong with releasing new versions, if they can improve on something from the prior version that is. We must remember that to some folks a new version may sound worse than an older one, but to others it may sound better. Depends on taste, room, and system. There are probably lots of fans of v.3 and v.4 despite you hating those versions, RGA. Now, do companies that don't release new versions believe their speakers cannot be improved on? Granted, Paradigm may take it to the extreme, but they are a business and many businesses tend to play the marketing game. It's up to the buyer to determine if an "upgrade" is worth it.

Now I'm not too sure why this veered off to Paradigm...RGA has some kind of hate on for this company! Okay, it just seems that way sometimes, like in this thread where I don't think anyone really brought them up before he set his sights on them. I know you've said RGA, they are competitive with other brands making that kind of speaker and so I'll overlook the frequent negative comments as some kind of indication that is not the case, and more just that they are a favorite whipping boy.

Now as for Paradigm reviews, these reviews are so positive that it's ridiculous. I can't wait to hear v.5 of the Studio 20.

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue49/paradigm.htm

http://www.goodsound.com/equipment/paradigm_studio10_v5.htm

http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/508para/

JohnMichael
07-18-2010, 06:08 PM
I think it's still v.2 for the Signature line, it's v.5 for the Studio line. Cabinets are all new btw, curved rather than square. IMO there is nothing wrong with releasing new versions, if they can improve on something from the prior version that is. We must remember that to some folks a new version may sound worse than an older one, but to others it may sound better. Depends on taste, room, and system. There are probably lots of fans of v.3 and v.4 despite you hating those versions, RGA. Now, do companies that don't release new versions believe their speakers cannot be improved on? Granted, Paradigm may take it to the extreme, but they are a business and many businesses tend to play the marketing game. It's up to the buyer to determine if an "upgrade" is worth it.

Now I'm not too sure why this veered off to Paradigm...RGA has some kind of hate on for this company! Okay, it just seems that way sometimes, like in this thread where I don't think anyone really brought them up. I know you've said they are competitive with other brands making that kind of speaker.

Now as for Paradigm reviews, these reviews are so positive that it's ridiculous. I can't wait to hear v.5 of the Studio 20.

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue49/paradigm.htm

http://www.goodsound.com/equipment/paradigm_studio10_v5.htm

http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/508para/





He has been beating the one note AN drum for as long as I can remember. They sound good to his ears but what sounds good to your ears is what is important. Once you are home listening to music he will not be there with his shiny coin saying AN is best, you want AN, buy AN, AN is best and now you are getting sleepy.

poppachubby
07-18-2010, 06:11 PM
Rich is Canadian and therefore Paradigm is his birthright. We have proprietary rights to love or hate them.

I suspect he targets the digms because it's a brand alot of people know and like. You would have to ask him I guess.

YBArcam
07-18-2010, 06:14 PM
He has been beating the one note AN drum for as long as I can remember. They sound good to his ears but what sounds good to your ears is what is important. Once you are home listening to music he will not be there with his shiny coin saying AN is best, you want AN, buy AN, AN is best and now you are getting sleepy.

haha, yes I know. I've noticed his posts for a few years. But he's not so bad. I respect his opinion, because it's different than what one would typically read. He's eloquent and I see the logic in what he says. I've bounced around between many different 2-way thin baffle designs and while I'm still happy to do so I recognize it'll soon be time to try something different. In all fairness to RGA, he has no problem admitting there are good examples of the design type that he's not particularly fond of. So it's cool!

Pat D
07-18-2010, 06:34 PM
Patd

Have you ever heard them? Have you ever heard a speaker that you can say sounds EXACTLY the same as them that you have concluded to be crossed off your list.

If you think you know how they sound because you read measurements of a designed for corner speaker to be heard at the listening chair based off a measurement where the speaker is 1 and 2 meters away average placed in the middle of the room then you're deluding yourself.

The speaker has a deliberate design to take advantage of corner rear wall and floor reinforcement. Those are "calculated into" the design. Two Stereophile writers own them and the third claimed a room with the E was the best he had ever heard (Wes Phillips). Did any of them buy the Paradigms? They're great so long as someone else buys them.

Sorry PatD - I understand looking at measurements but at some point experience has to come into play, and when a speaker is very widely considered to be a standout performer it is simply ridiculous to say - well it has a dip so I'm not going to listen to it because I've heard two other speakers with a dip and didn't like them. Especially when it brings a FAR greater sense of scale and macro and micro dynamics, clarity, resolution, bass, cohesiveness than an S2.

And you can claim that Art has idiosyncratic tastes but that would mean a LOT of reviewers have the exact same idiosyncratic tastes which seems odd to me. There are a staggering number of reviewers who own Audio Note speakers (which is shocking considering that they are tiny blip of a company compared to the big boys. Wes Phillips (claimed not long ago that they were in a system he felt was the best sound he'd ever heard, Peter Van Wellenswaard (owns), most of the writers at Dagogo, at least one writer at enjoythemusic.com, 6moons, Audiophile in Germany, and Hi-fi Choice which uses them as a reference to evaluate other gear.

I could see not making the time for some unusual measuring speakers that don't get that kind of press and acclaim and have not stood the test of time but my bias or not, I think you are only doing yourself a disservice by making an assumption because you think measurements tell 100% of the truth.

The issues in the measurements are a little noticeable although less on their equipment and less if they're properly positioned in corners - no speaker is perfect - except that the E is well balanced at the listening position where people listen. They also tend to be an end of the road product. People trade their Paradigms in for Audio Notes - not the other way around. I'm not saying everyone will agree. Jack Roberts likes the Teresonic single drivers over the Audio Notes but there is a room factor to consider and the Ingeniums are unbelievably good speakers. I was mightily impressed by a single driver that could cover the range it does. And while it's always fun to take snippets of quotes to note that a speaker like the AN E has a weakness - it should also be noted that the budget conscious Art Dudley did accept the weakness in the E and purchased them. He could have spent far less and bought an S2 or any other pile of 6 inch two way standmounts for less money. Art Dudley the guy who is always looking to save a buck obviously felt those other speakers had a LOT more shortcomings than the AN E.

Taking quotes of the S2 is easy too:

This is a little closer to the sidewalls than I use for full-range speakers, which adds some needed boundary reinforcement to the midbass with minimonitors. Even then, the Reference Signature S2 sounded light in overall weight

That means lacks bass weight

Occasionally I thought I noticed a touch of "gruffness" in the S2's presentation of bass instruments,

Grainy

But a 32Hz sinewave, even at modest volumes, produced some audible "doubling" (the addition of second-harmonic distortion). I never heard any wind noise emanating from the front-mounted port, by the way, but what I did hear from both speakers when I played the half-step–spaced toneburst track on Editor's Choice was some rattling of the grille between 90Hz and 160Hz. I fixed this with the strategic application of some Blu-Tack, but given that the grilles are so important to producing the correct treble balance, I was disappointed by this.

That means badly built.

As the toneburst went through the upper notes in the 512–1024Hz octave, each toneburst could be heard to acquire a very slight "shadow" at a different pitch. The same thing happened an octave lower, but with the shadow at the higher-pitched tone.

Shadow = ringing.

Compared with the Dynaudio Special 25, the Signature S2's treble balance was a little on the forward side,

Another term for bright - a second read between the lines indicator of bright.

"The voices on Vaughan Williams' Serenade to Music (with the Corydon Singers and the ECO directed by Matthew Best, Hyperion CDA66420) were presented slightly in front of the speaker plane, and the work's climaxes sounded edgier than I was anticipating, even given this CD's fairly early digital provenance (it was recorded in 1990). In general, the Signature S2s were better suited to good modern classical CDs, such as Keith Johnson's recording of Rimsky-Korsakov's Scheherazade with the London Philharmonic under José Serebrier (Reference RR-89CD), than to aged ones suffering from analog tape distortion and noise modulation, such as the 1962 performance of Delius' La Calinda from the Philharmonia under George Weldon (EMI Studio 7 69534 2)—much as I love the latter on musical grounds."

Read between the lines - most of your recordings will have to be thrown in the garbage because these speakers only sound good with certain recordings - in other words BRIGHT.

Thunderous? Well, up to a point, given the Signature S2's relatively diminutive size. No one who rates dynamic range as a major priority will be looking for a minimonitor as a first choice. In the tradition of the BBC LS3/5a, this Canadian speaker is not about loudness but about the ability to preserve subtleties and to maximize the purity of instrumental colors. Even so, I found a hardness that developed in the mid-treble to be the ultimate speed limit on loudness, rather than the fuzz and blurring that resulted from low-frequency overdrive.

Dynamically inept. Will compress badly and can't play bass at realistic levels. And they will get hard (which means bright - again with the read between the lines on brightness). Perhaps they're best suited for people close to 60 who need added ringing to make out the treble due to loss of HF hearing over the years.


And looking at the measurements

The port response rolls off smoothly above 50Hz, but I was alarmed to see a high-Q resonance present just above 800Hz. This aberration is severe enough to create a suckout at the same frequency in the woofer's response.

Suckout in a critical region. Far from perfect me thinks

the woofer's output shows slightly more of a boost in the upper bass in fig.3 than I expected from the nearfield measurement technique, implying a slightly underdamped bass alignment that, as I heard, will tend to compensate for the small speaker's lack of low bass.

Add a midbaass hump to cover for a lack of real bass. Common but nevertheless inaccurate.

The tweeter comes in with a third-order slope and is flat for the first octave and a half in its passband, but has a shelved-up response in its top octave, broken up by some interference effects.

Shelved up responses = Bright - here it is again.

However, a slight suckout can still be seen at 800Hz—the frequency of the resonant mode in the port's output—and the tweeter is slightly too high in level compared with the speaker's midrange level.

Yes the usual boom and sizzle effect of metal tweeters coupled with non complimentary woofers. You always will hear the tweeter independent of the woofer and it will always be noticeable. = Bright.

slight excesses of upper-bass and mid-treble energy apparent. The former goes some way toward compensating for the S2's lack of mid- and low-bass output, while the latter is not unexpected, given my feelings about the speaker's slightly forward treble balance.

boom and sizzle = bright. A lack of low mid and low bass combined with forward treble. I am not surprised no one there buys them.

I dunno. But they don't look totally without weaknesses Pat. I am sure the humongous levels of advertising didn't hurt Paradigm here to get a good review but reading between the lines - JA got his warnings in safely.

To Pat and Poppachubby
I would ask that you take the time at some point to have a quality long listen at some point. I was roundly unimpressed with the AN E when I first heard them. I don't know where you live but there is an Audio Show in San Franciso at the end of the month run by Dagogo. Something like $10 for a 3 day pass (I won't be able to make it unless I can swing a cheap flight). Bring your own music because depending who runs the room (and this applies to all the rooms) they tend to put on soft classical pieces without really giving a general sense of what a system can do. Unfortunately, Dave Cope who runs most of the shows has tinnitus and he was running the last show. This can be an advantage because he can leave you alone with it while he goes out in the hall. At CES he had to leave the room when Peter would put the crazy metal on at stupid levels. If it can't do metal it's not a good speaker - PERIOD. And virtually every standmount is so dynamically challenged that they compress badly - if they compress badly on that why does anyone think they can suddenly handle Beethoven's 9th which requires "more."

To a degree I understand that exhibitors play soft classical or Diana Krall all day because you can't expect the exhibitor to play Slayer at 100db all day for 3 days. But IMO people walk in and will listen to whatever is playing for 5-15 minutes make a decision and leave. If you are playing a mediocre recording during those 15 minutes then people presume it's the stereo. Audio Note is one of the very very very few exhibitors that BRING and PLAY lousy recordings with a lot of noise because they simply play music they like. Obviously, put up against a demo from another maker who plays the same well recorded and not challenging Krall album 102 times over and over covers their butt a lot better. Always put your own music on and turn the volume knob. The exhibitors have set it up to how they're suppose to be set-up (positioning wise). They are using the equipment that is supposed to be used, they have taken care of room treatments as best as the room can handle.

All quotes from http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/705paradigm/
You just keep showing you don't understand measurements, RGA. You should also distinguish between what the measurements say and your own preferences in sound.

We already know you don't like monitor speakers and you don't like subwoofers. If you really wanted to compare a Paradigm Signature speaker to the AN-E Lexus Signature, you should have picked the bigger Signature S8--still at half the cost. Comparing the biggish AN-E to my little Paradigm Signature S2 speakers brings it down to a matter of taste in speaker formats.

One wonders how well you can understand what you read. John Atkinson's concerns were quite minor. The 800 Hz suckout is very narrow and JA noticed something on test tones but was not sure he could hear anything untoward on music, and that on a recording he himself had made.

A little bass hump in the S2? Really tiny in the room response--but you don't seem to be aware that JA's frequency response measurements in the bass tend to add a little bit of a bass hump as an measurement artifact. He often mentions it in reviews. He evidently prefers to leave the data he gets there as is and let an intelligent reader assess what is happening.

JA's measurements will show ringing in a tweeter, but usually, as in this case, well above the audible range--another illustration that you don't understand measurements and say things you don't really understand.

A slight shelving in the treble? Well, it it's kind of hard to see that in the NRC measurements for Soundstage, which I presume are more accurate.

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/paradigm_signature_s2/

In your hurry to try to find support for your contention that the Paradigm Signature S2 is bright, you only quoted part of JA's sentence. Granted, it is not the best sentence he ever wrote, but still, taken in its entirety the meaning is clear: the treble is less forward for the S2 than for the Dynaudio Special 25:

"Compared with the Dynaudio Special 25, the Signature S2's treble balance was a little on the forward side, though not quite to the same degree as the Danish speaker."

This is also quite evident if you actually look at the measurements for the Dynaudio speaker:

http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/605dynaudio/index3.html

Take a little more care next time. Even JA can write a convoluted sentence.

OK, if you want a speaker with a shelved up response below about 600 Hz, a depressed response between 1-4 kHz, that's fine with me. Probably sounds pleasant enough most of the time, like the old Celestion 66.

Your remarks on how old recordings will sound seem to be a gross misinterpretation of what JA actually said. It's you who say they should be unlistenable on the S2 speakers. As for me, I have lots of older recordings and CD reissues of older recordings and find they generally sound better than ever on my Signature S2 speakers. Occasionally older recordings are rather bright--that's one reason I like the Quad 44 preamp, which has its Tilt control and if need be, elaborate filters. But I very seldom use the Tilt control or the filter. Of course, I listen mostly to classical music, and some of the labels (London comes to mind) seem to have done a very good job on their early CD reissues. Ansermet's recordings of De Falla and Mussorgsky are examples.

Of course, if you check the room response of the less expensive Audio Note AN-E/SPe HE loudspeaker, you will find that the treble and highs fall off above 2 kHz by about 4 dB/octave, at a guess! Similar with the Harbeth M40.1, BTW. Yeah, you won't get brightness there--the speaker doesn't reproduce the treble and highs at level. No wonder you think flatter speakers are bright!

And check out that big hump in the bass centered at 60 Hz in the room response for the AN-E SPe HE! And you have the gall to complain about a tiny bump in the Paradigm's upper bass response!

http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/506an/index6.html

The Audio Note AN-E Lexus Signature loudspeaker has that monstrous hump in the lower midrange and moving them closer to the corners is only going to increase the bass to match it. It will do nothing to flatten the response from 1-4 kHz or ameliorate the anomalies in the horizontal dispersion from about 1.5-5 kHz or so.

JA found major strengths with only minor faults in the Paradigm Signature S2, faults and gave it a Class A, Restricted Extreme LF.

The Audio Note AN-E Lexus Signature got a Class B, Full Range rating. It's measurements show some pretty major anomalies. One would never get around to discussing minor faults such as found in the Paradigm Signature. Art Dudley at least notices them, but they don't seem to bother him much. As he said in his review: "But people who are sensitive to departures from perfectly flat frequency response should consider themselves forewarned." They don't seem to bother you, either. But I am forewarned. As Bob Neill has often suggested, they aren't for everybody. Remember, I haven't said I would expect them to be unpleasant sounding, just that they have some quite audible anomalies of types I know would bother me.

A few years ago, when I was in Denver, I said to myself, maybe I should just try to listen to some AN speakers to see what RGA is talking about. I called up the AN distributor in Boulder, Audio Federation, and at the time, they had no AN speakers in--they were busy with one of the audio shows, she said. Not too many people carry them. Maybe there is a reason for that.

Again, I repeat, you should compare the full range AN-E Lexus Signature or, for that matter, to the AN-E SPe HE, to Paradigm Signature S8, another full range speaker, rather than compare them to a small monitor speaker. Surely you couldn't complain that the S8 lacks bass or won't play loudly enough.

http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/paradigm_signature_s8.htm

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/paradigm_signature_s8/

Another fine speaker would be the PSB Synchrony One, one of the best large speakers I have heard.

http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/psb_synchrony_one.htm

http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/408psb/

JohnMichael
07-18-2010, 06:58 PM
Check out this link because I want the Audio Note ANE Sogon for only $108,000. Oh wait I hope that is the pair price.

http://www.higherfi.com/spkrlist/speakerlist_page4.htm

Pat D
07-18-2010, 07:32 PM
Check out this link because I want the Audio Note ANE Sogon for only $108,000. Oh wait I hope that is the pair price.

http://www.higherfi.com/spkrlist/speakerlist_page4.htm

Nah, that's just cheap stuff. Look on page 2 for some good stuff for around $200,00. You have to pay that much to find something really good.

http://www.higherfi.com/spkrlist/speakerlist_page2.htm

Or, you could take the interest on that money to travel to lots of live concerts . . .

frenchmon
07-18-2010, 08:01 PM
Check out this link because I want the Audio Note ANE Sogon for only $108,000. Oh wait I hope that is the pair price.

http://www.higherfi.com/spkrlist/speakerlist_page4.htm


$108.000 for these??? I would not pay that kinda money for something that looks like that! For that kinda money, I dont care how good it sounds, it better not look like a Radio shack speaker from the 80's.

http://img801.imageshack.us/img801/861/audionoteanesogon180404.jpg (http://img801.imageshack.us/i/audionoteanesogon180404.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)

Every speaker on that page looks like a $100.000 speaker...all but the Audio Note speakers. I suspect someone at Audio Note is laughing all the way to the bank and have been for years.

Mr Peabody
07-18-2010, 08:38 PM
I hope it sounds good for $108k and only a 8" 2-way. Interesting Audio Note says they use very little damping material or internal bracing, I guess this is another point they choose to do the opposite of most other manufacturers. The only $100k speaker I've heard was the Dynaudio Evidence and it's hard for me to believe the AN-E could sound like that, keeping an open mind though because I've never heard the AN-E. The Evidence played lower than any speaker I've heard including subs and reproduced sound pressures like at a live show, although with more control and quality to the sound. It just doesn't seem possible for an 8" 2-way to do that. "Live show" is so open to interpretation but there is just no way to put into words the amazing force of the Evidence.

Following JM's link I am surprised at how many speakers you can buy over $100k that I've never even heard of :)

RGA
07-18-2010, 10:45 PM
PatD -

First - let's set some things straight. Art Dudley wanted the AN E speaker to be given a class A rating - quite vehemently so and he bought them. Wes Phillips hailed his audition as the best sound has he ever heard from an audio system (he would be in the non idiosyncratic camp by the way) and Wes I am pretty sure was a Dynaudio contour speaker owner at the time so he has heard this kind of design.

Art Dudley is not the editor of Stereophile - though he was the editor for Listener a better magazine with less advertising pull. John Atkinson is the arbiter of what is represented in the Stereophile listing - one guy one vote but it depends on who holds the biggest vote. That's fair enough since he is the editor but that is hardly representative. Two of his writers own the AN E and a third hails it the best sound he's ever heard - and nobody bought A Paradigm anything except one writer who owned before he was reviewer. And that writer tends to get the Paradigms.

Since Peter Qvortrup and John Atkinson have a "history" well I am not convinced by the objectivity there. Measuring a "known" corner speaker freestanding is laughable but fortunately those with money, ears, and brains know this.

I have auditioned the S2. I noted the issues I had with it - JA mentions those same concerns. I find them VERY noticeable, he mentions that to HIM some of these issues are not a big deal. But to some of us they ARE a big deal. To my Paradigm dealer and every single guy working there those issues are a big deal. You are welcome to disagree but it would be nice if instead of spending thousands of hours reading white papers and trying to claim that your preference is best because you have some measurements that you actually bother to listen to loudspeakers widely considered to be "some" of the very best in the world.

RGA
07-18-2010, 10:55 PM
Now I'm not too sure why this veered off to Paradigm...RGA has some kind of hate on for this company! Okay, it just seems that way sometimes, like in this thread where I don't think anyone really brought them up before he set his sights on them. I know you've said RGA, they are competitive with other brands making that kind of speaker and so I'll overlook the frequent negative comments as some kind of indication that is not the case, and more just that they are a favorite whipping boy.

Now as for Paradigm reviews, these reviews are so positive that it's ridiculous. I can't wait to hear v.5 of the Studio 20.

http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue49/paradigm.htm

http://www.goodsound.com/equipment/paradigm_studio10_v5.htm

http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/508para/

This is not an attack on the S2. Speakers - all of them - have shortfalls. PatD got on my case because he thinks I am unfairly comparing speakers - why? Both are two way loudspeakers. The AN E is bigger - so. What we're complaining unfair advantage because one speaker is designed to have bass and dynamics and sound natural but because it's bigger it is in a different class. On stands they both have tweeters that will be at the same height and they both will take up a similar footprint. If two way small standmounts can't compete then it says more about those designs than anything else.

I will state that I do have a bias not against the S2 or the Monitor 20 - I am not in general a fan of this kind of 2 way speaker - from almost everyone. I don't listen to JUST classical music and strings and as such I want music, all music, to be handled by the loudspeaker system and I want as spot on cohesion as is possible. I don't feel the Studio 20, S2 does that - but to be fair to Paradigm I also have not heard anybody else with similar offering like say the B&W 705 doing it either. The reason they make an S8 is for people who want the fuller scale reproduction - trouble is, while they give me that which I desire they also don't sound cohesive to me and are highly priced. As much as Audio Note may get attacked for extreme price points of one or two super charged versions the AN E can be bought for well under $3,000 as a kit and takes under an hour to build.

RGA
07-18-2010, 11:53 PM
I hope it sounds good for $108k and only a 8" 2-way. Interesting Audio Note says they use very little damping material or internal bracing, I guess this is another point they choose to do the opposite of most other manufacturers. The only $100k speaker I've heard was the Dynaudio Evidence and it's hard for me to believe the AN-E could sound like that, keeping an open mind though because I've never heard the AN-E. The Evidence played lower than any speaker I've heard including subs and reproduced sound pressures like at a live show, although with more control and quality to the sound. It just doesn't seem possible for an 8" 2-way to do that. "Live show" is so open to interpretation but there is just no way to put into words the amazing force of the Evidence.

Following JM's link I am surprised at how many speakers you can buy over $100k that I've never even heard of :)

Acapella sells speakers for over $850,000. Fred Crowder on our staff owns a smaller $200,000 speaker. He has been going to shows for over 25 years and has most of the best stuff come through his house. The Audio Note E's surprised and more than impressed him in terms of bass and the ability as he notes to produce density changes in the air (I refer to it as "pressure") that I hear when an actual instrument is played in the room. For absolute bass depth the AN E is not going to beat massive subwoofers or very large floorstanders - but they are certainly in the same class and IMO offer deeper bass than speakers like the Wilson Sophia II or Sasha at considerably more money.

I never really understand the uproar that the AN E Sogon speakers get at something like $125,000. Is it because it's a two way box? Well it can't be that because the outboard crossovers for each speaker are as big as a Krell amplifier. The silver caps and wiring alone weigh in at over 40lbs per external crossover.

My editor, a nice fellow who has heard every speaker out there and could have purchased virtually any speaker out there BOUGHT $40,000 Audio Note speakers with the smaller outboard crossovers http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=352

Unlike most speaker makers it's nice to be able to buy a $125,000 speaker (although I think they're up over $160k now) in a scaled down $2,500 kit and upgrade when money is available. Teresonic does something similar as do a few others.

Granted Peter named the flagship speakers Sogon for a reason (So Gone) due the price. These were designed for the desire to have a system that is 100% silver from cartridge to voice coil. I don't think anyone can justify that cost for loudspeakers, but I suppose if you have the money.

I think the thing to realize about the AN E "scale" of upgrades is that there are something like 11 versions of the speakers. The higher end models preach to the choir. I doubt too many people start there. But there is a very good chance that the AN E/Spe HE will be a speaker that has enough on tap for many people to say that it is the ultimate jack of all trades loudspeaker. It is two way loudspeaker that has bass that will hang in with something like the B&W N801 and Wilson Sophia II or Sasha. For people who conclude this as I do they will say for $7,500 I get bass that hangs in with those and I get all the advantages of a two way and I get to drive it with superior sounding SET amps and they can be put in corners which leaves me more of my living room that I am paying a mortgage on and the wife won't disown me for cluttering up the house. This is tough to beat on all grounds. Sounding beautiful to boot is not too shabby.

The upper models IMO are largely for people who are already convinced by Audio Note. The people who buy complete Audio Note systems for example typically tend to have been audiophiles for 20-40 years and if they got to this point they are convinced by them. Whether other people agree or not is beside the point. The AN guys are the guys convinced and those are the people who will typically move up into the stratospheric prices. This is why I try not to compare a Vandersteen $50k speaker to an Audio Note 50K speaker. I like the AN E $50k speaker more - I like the $7,500 AN E speaker more because I like the sonic perspective of the AN E more than the Vandersteen. But the $50k Vandersteen does sound a helluva lot better than the 2CE and to a Vandersteen lover they may make the same argument. That is their sonic perspective and the $50k version is the ultimate version of Richard Vandersteen's sonic belief system.

And let's not forget that just because something is BIG and has MANY drivers does not mean it costs more to make than a 2 way box with external crossovers. You would need to break down the costs of producing materials. A big box made of MDF is cheaper than a smaller box made of Birch. Silver costs more, expensive caps versus non expensive ones, the woofer in the two way may cost more than 6 drivers combined in the other guy's speakers. The AN E uses carted sheep's wool versus run of the mill dacron or foam inside many other speakers. Audio Note puts a LOT of money into the stuff you can't see while many others put it "only" into what you can see. Look how many people complained and whines about the caps and wiring of expensive B&W's. Why put money into good parts when nobody can see them. There is a cottage industry to upgrade old 801s.

And hey with Audio Note - if you feel the wiring thing is all bunk great there is a cheaper copper wired version available. When did choice become a problem?

Personally, I think it takes a fair amount of guts to produce such a wide array of price points from boxes that LOOK pretty much exactly the same. The money is in the stuff nobody sees and that could be a tough sell if the bottom line is the first priority.

Contrary to popular belief not all rich people are stupid. True audiophiles of means are not sheep that buy from a catalog or Stereophile. They audition, they get the gear to play with and they are the guys buying the creme de la creme. As Cai Brocman noted "Audio Note isn't for posers but for connoisseurs." Either one gets it or they don't. Experienced Audiophiles like this get it. http://www.audionote.co.uk/articles/reviews/PDF_HT05_Audio_Note_engl.pdf

RGA
07-19-2010, 12:58 AM
I do apologize if I have taken this off topic. If you want to discuss this further please send me a PM on the matter as it really probably doesn't belong in this thread any further. Both sides have stated their respective cases I think.

basite
07-19-2010, 01:00 AM
I withdrew my post -

RGA admitted he took this thread of topic, he made his point (yet again, the same point...) and I didn't want this thread to go further off topic too...



Cheers,
Bert.

frenchmon
07-19-2010, 04:13 AM
delete

Pat D
07-19-2010, 06:15 PM
Frenchmon

I mentioned that anyone can take quotes from a review to create a negative picture which is precisely what PatD did. So I took his loudspeaker and illustrated my point.

What PatD does not get is that ALL speakers are inaccurate. There is not perfectly accurate loudspeaker which is why designers - you know designers - the people with engineering backgrounds can't even decide whether or not to use a dynamic driver or ribbon, or electrostat, whether to house them in a box or have an open baffle whether to have one driver or 2 or 10 drivers, whether to go active or passive, whether corner load, horn load etc.

To know whether something is accurate (something is either 100% accurate or it isn't) then you MUST have an actual reference point. In other words if every engineer on the planet past present and future who agree upon ONE set of loudspeakers as being "perfectly" accurate ONLY then can you possibly be able to make comparisons and say speaker X is 89% accurate and speaker Y is 23% accurate.

We have as Peter eloquently noted an elephant in a room with one light above and we are looking at the shadows trying to determine what the Elephant looks like. We are trying to piece back together what it is we're looking at.

If we accept the fact that they're all inaccurate then it comes down to the two things sitting on the side of your head. Dynamics timbre tone and "naturalness" are the lifeblood of music. Frequency response while important changes dramatically in room, your ears forgive frequency issues but can't put dynamics back or bass or pressure. And the S2 is not perfect in terms of frequency - not even remotely so. So why take a theoretical better response for actual in room results?

As for coming out with a new version every 4 years - IMO that is convenient. New product buzz 6 months before release. Product hits market and makes rounds through the review press for 2 years. Sales then plateau in the 3 and 1/2 year range and then it's suddenly time to get the hype machine geared up for the next version. Version 5 is out now right? Same type of cabinet - some new driver to advertise and it will be doubtful if any of them are as good as Version 2 - version 3 and 4 were much worse and cost more.

Did I say anything about the speakers' accuracy, RGA? I don't think so. You are the one that mentioned the accuracy of speakers. Since I didn't talk about the accuracy of speakers, I see no reason to comment on your rambling discussion of it, bringing in everything but the kitchen sink.

I said that I think the NRC measurements are probably more accurate than the ones Stereophile does--and John Atkinson has sometimes said he is glad his curves often are quite close to those done on the same speakers at the NRC. But that's a different thing than talking about the accuracy of the speakers.

What I want to know is what the measurements will tell me about whether I will like the speakers in question. Dr. Floyd Toole's research dealt with preferences: what characteristics in speakers listeners generally prefer. Now you get all upset when I point out things in the AN-E Lexus Signature that I know will be quite audible and will bother me. That does not mean you will prefer those same characteristics. As I pointed out. Art Dudley hears them and describes them--but they don't bother him much. I've seen no evidence you notice them as you never talk about them.

I am concerned with what the measurements tell me about the sound. Again, you have some delusion that I am somehow supposed to predict "exactly" how a speaker will sound--well, RGA, everyone knows kissing and telling aren't the same! Piano sound is quite important for me, and so is vocal reproduction--and Art Dudley describes hearing the sorts of things the measurements would predict.

Now, I did not pick on your speakers. I talked about the measurements of the AN-E Lexus Signature speaker, which you don't own, and also a little about the AN-E SPe HE, which you don't own. You said you picked on my speaker because it was also a two way--so is that tiny little Radio Shack speaker that used to cost about $50. No, you picked on it because I have the S2 speakers. As I pointed out, it would have been more appropriate to compare with the S8, or perhaps the PSB Synchrony One, a speaker I also like.

You say you heard the same things John Atkinson heard in the Paradigm Signature S2--other than its limitations as a monitor speaker, I see no evidence of this. You are not as well trained a listener as is JA and you mention nothing about a slight sourness of a note on a clarinet. JA's point was that with the S2, one can talk about subtleties in the sound one never gets around to with most other speakers.

Do you really want to compare room responses of the S2 with the AN-E SPe He? Go right ahead! Remember, the S2 will likely be used with a subwoofer, which as Soundmind used to point out, would be a three way system.

http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/705paradigm/index3.html

http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/506an/index6.html

Of course, the rooms were different and the measurement methodology was different.

You also talk about reviewers buying speakers. Doug Schneider of Soundstage bought the Paradigm Signature S2 speakers, or doesn't he count? They're probably too cheap for Art Dudley to consider.

You seem to be privy to the inner workings at Stereophile. Art Dudley's taste in speakers seems to be so different from mine, not to say erratic. AD wanted the AN-E Lexus Signature to be Class A, did he? I pay no attention to his ratings, though perhaps I will take some account of his descriptions of what he hears from speakers. Nevertheless, even though I tend to share JA's tastes in speakers, in Stereophile, I look most closely at JA's measurements--just as I look most closely at the NRC speaker measurements done for Soundstage, and Andrew Marshall's speaker measurements in Audio Ideas Guide.

Pat D
07-19-2010, 07:11 PM
PatD -

First - let's set some things straight. Art Dudley wanted the AN E speaker to be given a class A rating - quite vehemently so and he bought them. Wes Phillips hailed his audition as the best sound has he ever heard from an audio system (he would be in the non idiosyncratic camp by the way) and Wes I am pretty sure was a Dynaudio contour speaker owner at the time so he has heard this kind of design.

Art Dudley is not the editor of Stereophile - though he was the editor for Listener a better magazine with less advertising pull. John Atkinson is the arbiter of what is represented in the Stereophile listing - one guy one vote but it depends on who holds the biggest vote. That's fair enough since he is the editor but that is hardly representative. Two of his writers own the AN E and a third hails it the best sound he's ever heard - and nobody bought A Paradigm anything except one writer who owned before he was reviewer. And that writer tends to get the Paradigms.

Since Peter Qvortrup and John Atkinson have a "history" well I am not convinced by the objectivity there. Measuring a "known" corner speaker freestanding is laughable but fortunately those with money, ears, and brains know this.

I have auditioned the S2. I noted the issues I had with it - JA mentions those same concerns. I find them VERY noticeable, he mentions that to HIM some of these issues are not a big deal. But to some of us they ARE a big deal. To my Paradigm dealer and every single guy working there those issues are a big deal. You are welcome to disagree but it would be nice if instead of spending thousands of hours reading white papers and trying to claim that your preference is best because you have some measurements that you actually bother to listen to loudspeakers widely considered to be "some" of the very best in the world.

As you should know, I spent quite a lot of time auditioning speakers before picking the Paradigm Signature S2 for my main speakers, and I first heard them before I had found any reviews of them. I auditioned the S2 a number of times against some other speakers, though that was not always possible. I know that I have very fine monitor speakers and really, I don't care what you, Art Dudley, and Peter Qvortrup think about it.

If I had come across anyone who actually carries Audio Note speakers, I would have been happy to listen to them. I am sure I would have heard the same anomalies Art Dudley and John Atkinson heard--they're just too big to miss and they would get in the way of the music.

But if you and your dealer like AN speakers, fine. If Art Dudley wanted AN speakers, fine. That's not my problem. I have long suggested people buy the speakers they like and I have no idea why you suggest otherwise.

Why on earth does it bother you that I have different needs and tastes in speakers than you do and that I find competent speaker measurements to be useful in setting up an audition list?

As for reviewers buying speakers they reviewed, well, Doug Schneider of Soundstage got the S2 speakers. Does he count?

I really don't much care about the speaker preferences of most audio consultants or sales people. Good sales people have to believe in the products they sell. I have often had to insist that the speakers I want to audition be set up properly. I've even seen the speakers they really wanted to sell placed better than the ones they weren't so anxious to sell.

poppachubby
07-19-2010, 07:16 PM
OK I think we are approaching redundancy here...

RGA
07-19-2010, 07:53 PM
Patd

Fair enough PatD. I thought you were suggesting they were accurate or that Toole's research was some sort of vindication for your "preferences" - this is how I read some of your posts which may not be your intent.

As for descriptors people use different adjectives to describe sound. I have never reviewed the AN E. I have never formally reviewed the S2. In most cases I try to preselect speakers I want to review because I don't really want to waste time reviewing products that I don't much like.

The notion of experience comes up from time to time but I think you give credit to reviewers who support your position and not to those who don't. I was on about Audio Note E speakers for quite a long time before Stereophile. It's nice to have far more experienced and veteran reviewers like Art Dudley, Paul Messenger, Constantine Soo, Fred Crowder, Wes Philips arrive after many years at a place that I got to in my early 30's. Art is not a lavish spender - he raved about a playstation to be used as a CD player (of all the writers that should be up the objectivists ally) - he's the only major reviewer I know of who came out for a $20 cd player. His vinyl system is relatively thrifty and he said this about a $1300 amplifier kit. http://www.audionote.co.uk/articles/Audio_Note_Kit_One%20review_Listener.pdf Art is one of the few reviewers out there looking to save a buck - so please don't suggest that he would pay $7,000 for a speaker and try to suggest that he just likes to show off. For him it is all about the sound and he's out to save people a buck.

The issue I take with your posts and I will try and get this across - is that you tend to support your opinion with the suggestion you are 100% correct on your preference because the measurements somehow support what you would buy. You have done it here by suggesting that JA is a better listener than me because he describes sourness in a Clarinet. Is there objective evidence that that is the S2 or the recording? Is he a better listener because he likes the S2 and I don't? Does that mean Art is tone deaf because he chose a speaker that doesn't conform to Toole's research. That's the way I read your posts. If JA and Soundstage like it then it is the best. If it's not a speaker that fits in that round hole then it is a lousy speaker and anyone buying it must have lesser hearing or likes euphonics. I could even accept those views had the person making those sorts of innuendos if he/she actually auditioned that which he/she condemns.

As for Stereophile - Art mentioned in the recommend listening that he felt the AN E should be class A+++ or something to this effect. I understand the appeal of lists but they're extremely dangerous just as things like rottentomatoes is dangerous in that you could take 100 critics and 80 of them could give the movie 3/5 for a recommendation, 10 could give it 4/5 a stronger recommendation, and 5 could give it a RAVE and five could give it a thumbs down. The movie scores 95% recommended so you say this is going to be great - all the critics agree. Conversely you could have a movie that gets 50 RAVE 5/5 reviews, 20 strong 4/5 reviews 10 recommended 3/5 reviews and the rest thumbs down. The movie has 80% which is lesser as a statistic but you have FAR greater chance that you will LOVE the second movie than you have of loving the first. Granted you have a greater chance of not liking it all with the second film.

The issue crops up in the review press. You have a reviewer review a certain number of pieces per year. They may review 3-12 pieces of gear over the year. A best in class list comes out but really how many people heard the specific speakers on a given staff. Maybe two. So you have one guy who LOVES the product to death and the second one gives it a solid but not rave review - so they cut the recommendation to a safer slightly lowered tier. Which is fair in some respects if the item is idiosyncratic. Hi-fi Choice does this and it makes some sense. They loved the OTO integrated - felt that none of the other amps in their group tests sounded as nice - but gave it 4 stars out of five. But that's fair because the amp is very low power has few features, no remote and won't play well with the average consumer speaker purchase. That is a completely fair rating and solid reasoning. Though it certainly makes it worth a listen if you do have the partnering gear so it would be a huge mistake to just see the 4 star rating and skip to the next amp - the next amp that got 5 stars but they felt didn't sound as good as one that got 4.

As for politics this is an issue for several companies. And you have conversed with Peter on AA. And certainly he doesn't mince words in person. He is not exactly the most loved guy when it comes to the press and he as well as Andy Grove and JA have been at it on AA a few times. It is not at all surprising that the reviewer who gets AN gear is the guy who got AN gear when he ran Listener. Taking personal bias out of it when you are not on good terms with the manufacturer is difficult to take out of the review.

As for Schneider or anyone else choosing the S2 - to be perfectly blunt it is not something I would argue against. If you're budget is in that $2k camp it's not like there are a lot of terrible loudspeakers or speakers that truly standout from the heap. I look at the $2k speakers sold at Soundhounds and there is Paradigm, Magnepan's 1.6, soem B&W's - a standmount and a floorstander, maybe a Sonus Faber and a Dynaudio. If standmounts that size are your thing then the S2 or 20 arguably are as good as anything in that price range I suspect.

But any ratings should be taken with a grain of salt because there are many factors other than sound in play with most of them.

3LB
07-19-2010, 08:25 PM
I look at driver measurements when building, but if I were just going to spend some time auditioning a set of speakers to buy, I'd just use my ears.

Worf101
07-20-2010, 04:39 AM
Thanks everyone for a VERY informative and spirited discussion on what I consider the "meat" of audio, speakers. Speakers are where the rubber meets the road, the last piece of kit before the music meets your ears so to speak. I came late to the audio game. My first set of speaks were a pair of cheapo JVC's from "Mom's Stereo". Muddy, with limited detail and no imaging to speak of, but I thought they were the chiznit because they gave me great thumping bass. My first true "speakers" were a set of Ohm Walsh2's that I still own. These were a revelation that helped me realize that there's more to music than bass and more to the chain than just the speakers. I've learned a LOT here since 2000.

With my introduction to better than average speakers I, kinda like TheKid, went retro with my speaker choices going with Ohm's, Epicure/EPI, ADS and finally Platinum Audio. I dearly want to own some Snell's but that'll have to wait. Some speakers I like, some I've hated, some I flat out love. It's more art than science to me though. It's kinda like beauty, I know it when I see it.

Worf

Pat D
07-20-2010, 08:14 AM
Patd

Fair enough PatD. I thought you were suggesting they were accurate or that Toole's research was some sort of vindication for your "preferences" - this is how I read some of your posts which may not be your intent.

As for descriptors people use different adjectives to describe sound. I have never reviewed the AN E. I have never formally reviewed the S2. In most cases I try to preselect speakers I want to review because I don't really want to waste time reviewing products that I don't much like.

The notion of experience comes up from time to time but I think you give credit to reviewers who support your position and not to those who don't. I was on about Audio Note E speakers for quite a long time before Stereophile. It's nice to have far more experienced and veteran reviewers like Art Dudley, Paul Messenger, Constantine Soo, Fred Crowder, Wes Philips arrive after many years at a place that I got to in my early 30's. Art is not a lavish spender - he raved about a playstation to be used as a CD player (of all the writers that should be up the objectivists ally) - he's the only major reviewer I know of who came out for a $20 cd player. His vinyl system is relatively thrifty and he said this about a $1300 amplifier kit. http://www.audionote.co.uk/articles/Audio_Note_Kit_One%20review_Listener.pdf Art is one of the few reviewers out there looking to save a buck - so please don't suggest that he would pay $7,000 for a speaker and try to suggest that he just likes to show off. For him it is all about the sound and he's out to save people a buck.

The issue I take with your posts and I will try and get this across - is that you tend to support your opinion with the suggestion you are 100% correct on your preference because the measurements somehow support what you would buy. You have done it here by suggesting that JA is a better listener than me because he describes sourness in a Clarinet. Is there objective evidence that that is the S2 or the recording? Is he a better listener because he likes the S2 and I don't? Does that mean Art is tone deaf because he chose a speaker that doesn't conform to Toole's research. That's the way I read your posts. If JA and Soundstage like it then it is the best. If it's not a speaker that fits in that round hole then it is a lousy speaker and anyone buying it must have lesser hearing or likes euphonics. I could even accept those views had the person making those sorts of innuendos if he/she actually auditioned that which he/she condemns.

As for Stereophile - Art mentioned in the recommend listening that he felt the AN E should be class A+++ or something to this effect. I understand the appeal of lists but they're extremely dangerous just as things like rottentomatoes is dangerous in that you could take 100 critics and 80 of them could give the movie 3/5 for a recommendation, 10 could give it 4/5 a stronger recommendation, and 5 could give it a RAVE and five could give it a thumbs down. The movie scores 95% recommended so you say this is going to be great - all the critics agree. Conversely you could have a movie that gets 50 RAVE 5/5 reviews, 20 strong 4/5 reviews 10 recommended 3/5 reviews and the rest thumbs down. The movie has 80% which is lesser as a statistic but you have FAR greater chance that you will LOVE the second movie than you have of loving the first. Granted you have a greater chance of not liking it all with the second film.

The issue crops up in the review press. You have a reviewer review a certain number of pieces per year. They may review 3-12 pieces of gear over the year. A best in class list comes out but really how many people heard the specific speakers on a given staff. Maybe two. So you have one guy who LOVES the product to death and the second one gives it a solid but not rave review - so they cut the recommendation to a safer slightly lowered tier. Which is fair in some respects if the item is idiosyncratic. Hi-fi Choice does this and it makes some sense. They loved the OTO integrated - felt that none of the other amps in their group tests sounded as nice - but gave it 4 stars out of five. But that's fair because the amp is very low power has few features, no remote and won't play well with the average consumer speaker purchase. That is a completely fair rating and solid reasoning. Though it certainly makes it worth a listen if you do have the partnering gear so it would be a huge mistake to just see the 4 star rating and skip to the next amp - the next amp that got 5 stars but they felt didn't sound as good as one that got 4.

As for politics this is an issue for several companies. And you have conversed with Peter on AA. And certainly he doesn't mince words in person. He is not exactly the most loved guy when it comes to the press and he as well as Andy Grove and JA have been at it on AA a few times. It is not at all surprising that the reviewer who gets AN gear is the guy who got AN gear when he ran Listener. Taking personal bias out of it when you are not on good terms with the manufacturer is difficult to take out of the review.

As for Schneider or anyone else choosing the S2 - to be perfectly blunt it is not something I would argue against. If you're budget is in that $2k camp it's not like there are a lot of terrible loudspeakers or speakers that truly standout from the heap. I look at the $2k speakers sold at Soundhounds and there is Paradigm, Magnepan's 1.6, soem B&W's - a standmount and a floorstander, maybe a Sonus Faber and a Dynaudio. If standmounts that size are your thing then the S2 or 20 arguably are as good as anything in that price range I suspect.

But any ratings should be taken with a grain of salt because there are many factors other than sound in play with most of them.

When people ask about speakers, I try to recommend some I think most people would like. The research shows that most people like speakers with an even frequency response, wide and even dispersion, and low distortion--at least, those are the ones most prefer under blind conditions. I also recommend people audition speakers with a variety of program materials, take the best ones for home auditions, and pick the ones they like.

A while ago, I suggested a number of good speakers, including Paradigm Signatures, to a fellow living in Australia. He wrote me that he hadn't considered Paradigm until I mentioned them. When he auditioned some of the Signatures, he was, of course, amazed at their natural, neutral and musical sound. He thanked me for suggesting them and bought a pair. He is a very satisfied customer.

Art Dudley's columns are a good source for the beliefs and attitudes of a kind of audio subculture. I don't pay much attention to them.

RGA
07-20-2010, 01:33 PM
Patd

Why do you feel it necessary to paint Art is some kind of kook and can only like subcutlure whacky stuff? I just can't see all those numerous other reviewers who buy them (Buy them having heard the likes of Paradigm) all being tone deaf poor hearing lacking in training and experienced individuals. Most every magazine in print and online has at least one review on staff with AN speakers. We're all wrong?

Even Soundstage has not had an Audio Note speaker since 2000 which was a floorstander called the AZ Two which is a $900 little floorstander. And was their Reviewer's Choice in 2000.

"Once the speakers were driven for a few hours, what immediately impressed me about them was the heft and detail of the bass, the clarity of the upper bass and lower midrange (particularly considering the corner placement) and the transparency and detail in the midrange. Bass was pleasantly extended and powerful, with subjective extension to a very solid 40Hz and usable bass reaching to perhaps 35Hz. Soundstaging was panoramic (how could it not be -- it went wall to wall!) and imaging was quite good -- which surprised me. While not quite up to minimonitor standards, voices were more focused and stable in the center (even when I was seated off-axis) than they had any right to be, and they were surrounded by a fairly delineated stage of performers. The AZ-Two has a slightly forward upper midrange, giving it an energetic sound, and the treble falls back into line, making it acceptably smooth and lacking in irritation. I can blast Audio Note all day about the aesthetics of the AZ-Twos, but they are some of the best near-full-range $900 speakers I’ve heard. If you are on a budget and sound is more important than looks, these are worth a long listen -- no matter what your electronics.../... http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/audionote_zero_system.htm

Pat D
07-20-2010, 06:16 PM
Patd

Why do you feel it necessary to paint Art is some kind of kook and can only like subcutlure whacky stuff? I just can't see all those numerous other reviewers who buy them (Buy them having heard the likes of Paradigm) all being tone deaf poor hearing lacking in training and experienced individuals. Most every magazine in print and online has at least one review on staff with AN speakers. We're all wrong?

Even Soundstage has not had an Audio Note speaker since 2000 which was a floorstander called the AZ Two which is a $900 little floorstander. And was their Reviewer's Choice in 2000.

"Once the speakers were driven for a few hours, what immediately impressed me about them was the heft and detail of the bass, the clarity of the upper bass and lower midrange (particularly considering the corner placement) and the transparency and detail in the midrange. Bass was pleasantly extended and powerful, with subjective extension to a very solid 40Hz and usable bass reaching to perhaps 35Hz. Soundstaging was panoramic (how could it not be -- it went wall to wall!) and imaging was quite good -- which surprised me. While not quite up to minimonitor standards, voices were more focused and stable in the center (even when I was seated off-axis) than they had any right to be, and they were surrounded by a fairly delineated stage of performers. The AZ-Two has a slightly forward upper midrange, giving it an energetic sound, and the treble falls back into line, making it acceptably smooth and lacking in irritation. I can blast Audio Note all day about the aesthetics of the AZ-Twos, but they are some of the best near-full-range $900 speakers I’ve heard. If you are on a budget and sound is more important than looks, these are worth a long listen -- no matter what your electronics.../... http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/audionote_zero_system.htm
Here's one of the things you said about Art Dudley:

" For him it is all about the sound and he's out to save people a buck."

I am sure he's a nice guy, and is well motivated. He writes well and entertainingly. He even likes some of the same recordings I do--for example, I remember he mentioned the recording of Sibelius' Violin Concerto with Ruggiero Ricci, violin, conducted by Oivin Fjelstad, which is my favorite recording of the work. No one says he is tone deaf as far as I know. His preferences for speakers seem to be far different from mine. But alas, he also buys into all sorts of ideas about audio which have been debunked by people who know more technically about audio than he does. That goes for many reviewers, so in that respect, he is not at all unusual. He writes more entertainingly than most, though, and I suspect the reason many like him so much is that he reinforces their views..

As for picking reviewers who agree with me, I should point out that it is you who keep telling me that some reviewers have Audio Note speakers. But when I rejoin that Doug Schneider bought the Paradigm Signature S2 speakers, I am supposed to be cherry picking? If it's OK for you to mention who buys AN speakers, I surely have the right to point out someone who bought Paradigm Signature speakers. Unlike you, Doug Schneider didn't just say they were good at the price:

"Paradigm has fashioned a state-of-the-art bookshelf classic that is the benchmark by which other minimonitors should be judged -- and costs around $2000 per pair."

http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/paradigm_signature_s2.htm

In a later review, Schneider compared the PSB Platinum M2 with the Signature S2:

"The S2 and M2 embody the pinnacle of common-sense two-way bookshelf-speaker design. For $2000 you should expect a lot, and both speakers deliver a lot. Despite how good these speakers look and how well they’re made, you can also spend more and get something that has even more sex appeal and whizzier cabinet materials. In terms of sound quality, though, I have yet to hear a two-way speaker that can outperform these two Canadian champs across the board."

http://www.soundstage.com/revequip/psb_platinum_m2.htm

I won't pain you with what Andrew Marshall has said about the Paradigm Signature and PSB Synchrony speakers. If you want to play the game of speakers liked by reviewers, I can do that, too.

I should point out that my favorites among current speaker reviewers, John Atkinson, Doug Schneider, and Andrew Marshall, all buy into a lot of the same audio subculture, though all three also do speaker measurements. JA measures a lot of electronics, too. All three like the Paradigm Signature speakers a lot, also the PSB Synchrony series speakers. Just because they buy into an audiophile subculture hardly means they cannot listen to speakers, though I much prefer subjective comments when accompanied by a good set of measurements.

tom1967
07-24-2010, 02:53 PM
Had a chance here in Palm Beach area to hear a set of Birds Eye maple AN-Js next to a set of old Klipsch Cornwalls which are my all time favorites for 2 channel music (you can throw a blanket over 100 other brands if you are talking about 5 Channel HT). The ANs sound great with all the advantages of the Cornwalls and just flat out less fatiguing....and surprisingly very efficient which lends itsef to use with tubes, if you are so inclined.The ANs made you forget there was a box there emitting sound which is the main thing I look for. I just wish they could find a way to sharpen the price point on these. As for Paradigms, I own a set of their Studio 20s......impressive build quality and no specific complaints, but just dont distinguish themselves for the price among the sea of competitors....kind of the flavor of the day that replaced B & W as the darlings of sites like this.....

Mr Peabody
07-24-2010, 03:02 PM
Tom, have you heard the Klipsch RF63, if so, your opinion?

tom1967
07-24-2010, 03:36 PM
This probably should be a separate post.....see attached blind sound test.....Their little brother did well indeed and if you read the responses that follow, I commented that the competition was based on music, whereas the Klipsch would tend to shine on HT....beyond that you can buy the Klipsch at considerable discount over the prices quoted.....This one brought out the Klipsch haters. I think the whole series is a great value..and, people need to know that the Klipsch horn thing is badly exaggerated...they are vestigial horns and nothing like the pre 80s giant metal folded jobs...

http://www.audioholics.com/reviews/speakers/floorstanding/2010-1k-faceoff

Mr Peabody
07-24-2010, 03:46 PM
I used to be a bit of a Klipsch basher based on a home demo of a pair of KLF and some of the Best Buy stuff but have since changed my mind when I heard a friend's Khorns. I picked up a pair of Heresy III and have been playing with them. I heard the RF63 briefly driven by an Integra receiver and was pretty impressed and they were noteably better than the RF82. I also picked up a pair of used Forte. So I know Klipsch can make good models. I heard a couple pair of Palladium which were very good but a bit pricy.

RGA
07-24-2010, 07:46 PM
Tom

Audio Note is a tiny operation and bringing the price down will be difficult. Whether one likes the speaker is somewhat subjective but the physical parts cost more than average to make. Russian birch ply is more expensive than MDF - and the heat cool treating when the cabinets are put together is a little more involved than simply using some plastic molds as most speakers seem to use and then slapping a laminate over top. The cabling is more expensive in terms of raw materials and the process with which to make them. They all have to be hand matched which means every speaker sits on a bench and a human being is spending a couple of hours with them. Not an assembly line of people sticking in a driver screwing them together down the line in 12 minutes and 6 seconds and board meetings in an office some place to get that down to 9 minutes and 4 seconds to generate another million a year.

British Union wages, Expensive parts and shipped around the world.

It still amazes me that that AX Two speaker can sell for $700 when the whole thing is hand built in Denmark, using Vifa drivers, good wiring and connections - and shipped over here. The website's grand advertising is that it's a nearfield monitor "designed as a general purpose small loudspeakers, and will work well with almost any amplifier." Couple of Vifa drivers in a quasi-horn loaded box. A lot of speakers at my dealer have a lot of trouble against these "zero" level speakers if human voice and acoustics are vital. The next time I am in Victoria I may pick up a demo pair.

On the price front, AN does have kit products to help people save some money. They're based in Canada (though the speaker kit I heard was no match for the production models - but to be fair the kit builder may have made a mistake somewhere. I would want another audition before I say one way or the other).

Some rumblings that they would have a plant in Canada and or the U.S which would reduce prices - but that would mean Peter would not be able to oversee everything that is going on. At CES I asked him if AN was planning to make a Radio tuner since it seems like that's one part of the chain that is missing. His reply was that he does make them and have for years and he of course thinks his are the best. So I asked him why is it not on the website? His reply was "Then someone would want to buy one and we would have to make them." That says it all really.

They have a couple of other turntables in the line-up, a speed changing external motor for my TT2 turntable, piles of stuff they have made and don't advertise - they can't keep up.

While I am at my dealer I am mainly going to get a power amp for my Rotel preamp. I sorta want to buy a SS system *shrug* just to be able to say I have one. The Preamp is quite decent for the price and for being SS. They may have an Arcam, Rotel, or Quad power amp. SS power amps for low money make sense.

Maybe I'll go Wednesday. I have a new car and the stereo is pitiful. The last time I seriously shopped for car audio, Alpine was one of the better makes and MB Quart was king of the higher fidelity speakers. I went to best buy and it was all plasticy junk. Soundhounds carries the Nakamichi Decks and Boston Acoustics car speakers but geez every dollar that goes to the car doesn't go the home stereo.

Mr Peabody
07-24-2010, 08:14 PM
The story I heard was Peter had Oompa Loompas building the AN speakers.

Geoffcin
07-25-2010, 03:19 AM
Any speaker that would produce a response like this in room is flawed in a way that can't be fixed by any kind of placement.
http://stereophile.com/images/archivesart/66ANFUpfig1.jpg
If any of my speakers displayed such characteristics I would call them broken.

Mr Peabody
07-25-2010, 05:42 AM
Any speaker that would produce a response like this in room is flawed in a way that can't be fixed by any kind of placement.
http://stereophile.com/images/archivesart/66ANFUpfig1.jpg
If any of my speakers displayed such characteristics I would call them broken.

What speaker is that graph for?

Geoffcin
07-25-2010, 07:21 AM
What speaker is that graph for?

The blue line was Oompa Loompa built.

Just goes to show you; A flawed design will always produce a flawed result.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-25-2010, 07:58 AM
Any speaker that would produce a response like this in room is flawed in a way that can't be fixed by any kind of placement.
http://stereophile.com/images/archivesart/66ANFUpfig1.jpg
If any of my speakers displayed such characteristics I would call them broken.

That is one nasty frequency response. How could anyone release a speaker with this kind of curve and call it good sounding?

JohnMichael
07-25-2010, 08:12 AM
That is one nasty frequency response. How could anyone release a speaker with this kind of curve and call it good sounding?




Maybe their ears measure poorly and to them that sounds natural. I remember an old audio tale and may not have it correct but it is about a speaker designer who attended many concerts in his reserved seats. He would design his speakers based on what he heard at the concert. His seats were not in a good acoustical space so his speakers were not good either.

There is also the story of the designer that as his high frequency hearing was diminishing his speakers were becoming brighter.

Pat D
07-25-2010, 09:09 AM
That is one nasty frequency response. How could anyone release a speaker with this kind of curve and call it good sounding?
Well, those are room responses. Actually, they are for two speakers in Art Dudley's room as measured by John Atkinson and the quasi-anechoic responses would not be quite so bad looking, though they are not great. The blue line is for the Harbeth M40.1 ($6900/pr) and the red line if for the Audio Note AN-E SPe HE ($12,995/pr). We don't have quasi-anechoic measurements for the AN speaker but you can find the measurements for the AN-E Lexus Signature ($12,200/pr). You'll find the two curves here, and you can find the quasi-anechoic curves easily enough:

http://stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/506an/index6.html

Remember, we have one reviewer's :devil: word for it that these are widely recognized as some of the finest speakers in the world!

basite
07-25-2010, 10:37 AM
That is one nasty frequency response. How could anyone release a speaker with this kind of curve and call it good sounding?


because it sells for too much money to say that it doesn't sound good...

frenchmon
07-25-2010, 11:46 AM
Ok...you guys got me because I dont know a thing about reading those grafts. So class is in...some one kindly educate me.

frenchmon
07-25-2010, 11:49 AM
If that one is bad then so is these....and I know both of these speakers sound good.

So maybe charts and grafts dont tell the whole story.

http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/9949/307fupfig17181851.jpg (http://img821.imageshack.us/i/307fupfig17181851.jpg/)


The Red is Dynaudio Confidence C4 and the Blue is Canton Vento Reference 1 DC


http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/794/index8.html

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)


Both Speakers are in the same class range and cost about the same price. And I dont know what any of it means.

frenchmon
07-25-2010, 12:00 PM
This is the Monitor Audio Silver Rs6. I guess it has to be bad as well and I've heard nothing but praise for it.

Again.I haven't a clue. IF any body wants to teach me or send me to get a book im open.

http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/1893/306ma6fig37815499.jpg (http://img831.imageshack.us/i/306ma6fig37815499.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)


Fig.3 Monitor Audio Silver RS6, anechoic response on tweeter axis at 50", averaged across 30° horizontal window and corrected for microphone response, with the nearfield responses of the midrange unit (blue), woofer (red), upper, rear port (magenta), and lower, front port (green).

http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/306monitor/index3.html

poppachubby
07-25-2010, 12:10 PM
Maybe their ears measure poorly and to them that sounds natural. I remember an old audio tale and may not have it correct but it is about a speaker designer who attended many concerts in his reserved seats. He would design his speakers based on what he heard at the concert. His seats were not in a good acoustical space so his speakers were not good either.

There is also the story of the designer that as his high frequency hearing was diminishing his speakers were becoming brighter.


I recall the audio tale about the designer who was lonely and lived with his parents, never married and a virgin. He made speakers in which a hand would come out of the woofer and pleasure you. Oh and they had great soundstage.

RGA
07-25-2010, 12:21 PM
Pat D

One reviewer's word?

Constantine Soo Dagogo.com - Owns two pairs of AN E speakers http://www.dagogo.com/View-Staff.asp?hStaff=1

Jack Roberts dagogo.com AN E ( he moved to the Teresonic Ingeniums which is a fine move - not one I would make but he doesn't really have a room suitable so the move makes since - the point though he did own them http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=351

Art Dudley - Owns AN E speakers http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/506an/index5.html

Chris Redmond - 6 moons - AN E speaker owner http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/christopher/christopher.html

Peter Van Willenswaard - Stereophile contributing measuring guru - owns AN E speakers http://www.stereophile.com/reference/357/index1.html

Hi-Fi Choice Magazine - uses AN E speakers as a reference. they bought a pair in 1992 and then again in 2003 - not available on line

Paul Messenger - Hi-fi Critic, Hi-Fi Choice and others - placed them on a list of the five best speakers made in their best of list.

Steven Rochlin - Editor of enjoythemusic.com - owns AN J speakers

Leonard Norwitz - classical composer and reviewer for enjoythemusic.com - Owns AN E speakers - he left his career to be a dealer because he liked them so much. In fact he owns

Playback Equipment:

Audio Note Io-Gold MC phono cartridge
Triplanar Tonearm
Voyd Reference 3-motor turntable
Audio Note AN-S9 MC transformer
Audio Note M8 preamplifier
Audio Note Baransu 300B amplifier
Audio Note AN-E/SE Sig
Audio Note silver interconnect & speaker wire http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0109/tj_full_music_300b_carbon.htm

Bob Neill - Positive Feedback Magazine - liked AN so much he left reviewing and became a dealer.

Wes Philips - Stereophile "Forget best sound of show, for sheer emotional delivery, timbral clarity, dynamic agility, and, yes, the highest fidelity, the Audio Note system may have been the best hi-fi I have ever heard. It was one of those magical moments that we audiophiles put up with all of the hassles for. After the Audio Note demo. the rest was noise, so I quit on a winner. Not many people who come to Vegas can say that." http://blog.stereophile.com/ces2009/ongaku_means_ecstasy/

This is just some off the top of my head - only 5% of their business in North America - plenty of magazines in Asia, the mid east, Russia etc. And that's just speakers. The numbers of reviewers who own CD players and Amps is also disproportionately high.

Geoffcin
07-25-2010, 12:27 PM
If that one is bad then so is these....and I know both of these speakers sound good.

So maybe charts and grafts dont tell the whole story.

http://img821.imageshack.us/img821/9949/307fupfig17181851.jpg (http://img821.imageshack.us/i/307fupfig17181851.jpg/)


The Red is Dynaudio Confidence C4 and the Blue is Canton Vento Reference 1 DC


http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/794/index8.html

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)


Both Speakers are in the same class range and cost about the same price. And I dont know what any of it means.

No, these reading aren't bad at all, in fact these are REALLY GOOD!

If you look carefully you can see the response from both speakers at 20Hz is about 0dB, that's HUGE bass extension! These are TRUE full range speakers. There's a high Q 10dB bump at 100Hz for both speakers that's most likely caused by a room node. After that both traces are remarkable smooth with the Dyn being not only incredibly smooth from 500Hz- 8kHz, but nearly perfectly flat too, where the Canton is on a slow downward trend.

From that I read that the Dyn would sound a bit brighter than the Canton which slowly rolls off in the treble. The Dyn also has a bit more bass in-room than the Canton. But even with that, both the Dyn and the Canton are incredibly good and flat in the really important area where human voice is. Just my guess but both of these speakers should sound magical with female singers with the nod going to the Dyn for overall presentation. The Dyn also looks like it would have the more powerful presentation of the two, but with BOTH of them able to fully capture large scale music easily.

Yes, you really can read all of that from a graph! It's also important to have at least a couple of speakers measured so you can see the room in the graph as well as the speakers.

Geoffcin
07-25-2010, 12:32 PM
This is the Monitor Audio Silver Rs6. I guess it has to be bad as well and I've heard nothing but praise for it.

Again.I haven't a clue. IF any body wants to teach me or send me to get a book im open.

http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/1893/306ma6fig37815499.jpg (http://img831.imageshack.us/i/306ma6fig37815499.jpg/)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)


Fig.3 Monitor Audio Silver RS6, anechoic response on tweeter axis at 50", averaged across 30° horizontal window and corrected for microphone response, with the nearfield responses of the midrange unit (blue), woofer (red), upper, rear port (magenta), and lower, front port (green).

http://www.stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/306monitor/index3.html

Actually that looks like +/- 3dB from 35Hz - 15kHz to me. Pretty darn good!

The spike at 20kHz and the hashy colored lines are not audible.

RGA
07-25-2010, 12:37 PM
Art's listening room http://forum.stereophile.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/146/ and
http://forum.stereophile.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/205

Both the Harbeth and AN show quite a bit of the room in those measurements. Both speakers have been around 30+ years while their great speakers get dumped for new an unimproved models every 5 or less. It's laughable.

frenchmon
07-25-2010, 12:46 PM
Well I guess the AN is bad after all....Thank you kind sir for the lesson...now im off to try and educate my self a little....sounds really interesting.

basite
07-25-2010, 12:49 PM
The spike at 20kHz and the hashy colored lines are not audible.


not audible, but they "contribute" to the speaker's sound, it's character.

@frenchmon:

the chart you shown for the MA RS6's is a very good repsonse indeed, given the "flatter line" it's more neutral sounding, but it definitely has it's own character. the chart doesn't tell everything, but it does tell you some important facts.

just a mere nuance on this charts, a slight difference here or there can be a BIG difference in sound. However, all these nuances are good, as they define the different characters of speakers.

the difference with the chart from the AN speakers, is that the line is nowhere near "linear", in fact, it's more like the alps or the himalaya. this shouldn't be. My 35 year old advent speakers have a better response graph, and they were a very basic design, with some flaws, typical on some (cheaper) vintage speakers. Yes, they sound good, they have their strenghts, given their price and age that is, would I buy something that sounds like my advents, for a serious amount of money, and looks like a beginner's DIY job?

well
no...

basite
07-25-2010, 12:52 PM
Art's listening room http://forum.stereophile.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/146/ and
http://forum.stereophile.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/205

Both the Harbeth and AN show quite a bit of the room in those measurements. Both speakers have been around 30+ years while their great speakers get dumped for new an unimproved models every 5 or less. It's laughable.


yeah, but there are quite an amount of speakers that were in there, and measured better.

way better.

RGA
07-25-2010, 01:13 PM
yeah, but there are quite an amount of speakers that were in there, and measured better.

way better.

And look at which one Art Dudley Purchased!


The issue is that speakers will measure differently from room to room. Frequency response is not the most critical aspect of a speaker. The blind level matched panels that Hi-fi Choice conducts where the actual manufacturewrs are involved in the listening throw some independant light on this. The AN E and J have been tested and have won the day - despite some of the panel's comments about some frequency issues the multitude of other factors won the day.

From Chris Redmond who owned the Revel F30 for a few years - a well measuring loudspeaker under the Harman design umbrella:

"without making direct objective comparisons (something I can’t really do due to different placement and cabling anyway), I’ve got to say I now prefer the AN-Es for the simple reason that I end up listening to more music while they’re installed in my system, and that is THE ultimate aim of any piece of audio equipment… surely? To make music more enjoyable - or rather as enjoyable as you‘d imagine the live performance would be?

To those readers who suspect I’m being seduced by any Audio Note house ‘sound’ and that there’s perhaps some warmth being added by the AN-Es, I’d suggest they’re not actually a million miles away from the F30s which are regarded as being as accurate/neutral in their presentation as one could reasonably hope for in a similar price bracket, and that the 100wpc E.A.R. valve amplification I use definitely IS a million miles away from displaying any euphonic tendencies, being more ’studio’ than many solid state alternatives.

No, the AN-Es rely on their qualities of reproduction rather than euphonic introduction to seduce, and subjectively the AN-Es come across as being highly detailed, super articulate and supremely musical, which I’d imagine would manifest itself being highly rated in a blind listening comparison with their competitions, although I could also see that they might not be immediately ‘impressive’ if auditioned in isolation over a short session.../...

While listening in the AN room, one visitor commented on how it made a refreshing change to hear a speaker where the high frequency and midrange drivers blended together properly, as almost every other room seemed to get it ‘wrong’; again, I’m in danger of repeating myself but with AN gear it usually does come down the overall sound being ’right’ rather than the listener wanting to dissect and analyse the qualities - at least for this listener anyway.../...The fact I now have a pair of AN-Es on my own shopping list says more than I ever could, and I’ve said plenty; but for me the Audio Notes have an overall coherence and articulation which results in a more involving listening experience, and this in itself results in more time spent listening to music."

It's all fine to look at specs and measurements in isolation - this is better than that - similar to saying that a baseball team has a better third baseman or better closer - but a balanced high quality team beats a team with 2 stars and a lot of holes. The measurements provide an grossly incomplete picture. They tell you all about 3 positions on the field and not the other 6.

basite
07-25-2010, 02:19 PM
And look at which one Art Dudley Purchased!


The issue is that speakers will measure differently from room to room. Frequency response is not the most critical aspect of a speaker. The blind level matched panels that Hi-fi Choice conducts where the actual manufacturewrs are involved in the listening throw some independant light on this. The AN E and J have been tested and have won the day - despite some of the panel's comments about some frequency issues the multitude of other factors won the day.


no, the frequency response is not the most important factor. what I was saying however, was that in the same room as where the AN's were tested, there were many speakers there too that weren't as flawed (that is really the only way to put it, looking at the graph...).

If he likes them, as do you, I've got no problem with that. But I see no reason whatsoever in constantly raving on about an overpriced, flawed and from a technical/design point of view utterly outdated speaker.

the one model they have that costs $700 might be worth it's price, certainly, the others that cost way more simply don't.

I truly appreciate and support the art of building a great speaker by using not the newest technology, almost stupendous amount of gadgets to actually make the 8" woofer sound like twin 15 inch woofers. I don't. I support the art of building a speaker by means of proven methods and technologies.

What AN does though, is not using the proven methods, it just simply ignores them, and continues to claim that a rectangular, "lightly braced & hardly damped" cabinet that *ahem* "helps the drivers" is the best way to go...

I mean, what stuff were they on, and can I have some too?
can you see the party the standing waves are having in there?

this is not the only big flaw in their design, well 'design'...

no wonder they have a crossover as big as a krell amp, with all the things to compensate there, you're gonna need it...

could very well be it sounds good. probably very pleasant to listen to, very colored, a good body (although I do think the cabinet resonating has something to do with this too...), but sure, they'll sound good...

but then again, my advents do to, as does my '57 nordmende traviata table radio...

keep them spinning,
Bert.

YBArcam
07-25-2010, 02:28 PM
Actually that looks like +/- 3dB from 35Hz - 15kHz to me. Pretty darn good!

The spike at 20kHz and the hashy colored lines are not audible.

I look at that graph and say it has a bit of a bass hump and then is pretty flat, but at 1kHz it starts climbing to the point that the treble becomes more prominent than the mid range or bass frequencies. Maybe I am misreading the graph, but I'm just trying to correlate my own impressions of listening to the speaker to what I see on paper. I had the RS5 for a while and found the treble to be way too prominent. I enjoyed just about every other aspect of the sound. It wasn't even that the treble was fatiguing, I could listen to the speaker for long periods of time, rather it was that the highs were so loud that they covered up the rest of the sound spectrum. If music didn't feature a lot of highs it was fine, but when it did forget about it.

I've always kind of marvelled at how PSB and Paradigm have such flat curves. It must have something to do with their access to the NRC facilities.

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/paradigm_studio20_v3/frequency_listeningwindow.gif

Paradigm Studio 20: Response curve is an average of five measurements:
on-axis, 15 degrees left and right off-axis,
15 degrees up and down off-axis
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/paradigm_studio20_v3/

Now that is flat!

Having said all this, I would say enough people think highly of AN that I wouldn't put much stock in the graphs. I'd want to hear them for myself.

JohnMichael
07-25-2010, 02:33 PM
Art seems to be reviewing and enjoying some Wilson speakers lately. Will Art jump the AN ship in favor of Wilson's? Only time will tell.

YBArcam
07-25-2010, 02:37 PM
I read recently that there are two schools of thought, the first that a speaker is built so that it has no resonances, or as solidly as possible, with lots of bracing and damping and whatever else goes into that. Another is that you do not use a lot of bracing and damping, and a wood such as birch is often used, and the idea is that the speaker will resonate the way that a musical instrument resonates. Clearly AN falls into this latter category. I'm not up enough on speaker design to know this but perhaps it is the reason their frequency response curves look the way they do.

Geoffcin
07-25-2010, 03:31 PM
I look at that graph and say it has a bit of a bass hump and then is pretty flat, but at 1kHz it starts climbing to the point that the treble becomes more prominent than the mid range or bass frequencies. Maybe I am misreading the graph, but I'm just trying to correlate my own impressions of listening to the speaker to what I see on paper. I had the RS5 for a while and found the treble to be way too prominent. I enjoyed just about every other aspect of the sound. It wasn't even that the treble was fatiguing, I could listen to the speaker for long periods of time, rather it was that the highs were so loud that they covered up the rest of the sound spectrum. If music didn't feature a lot of highs it was fine, but when it did forget about it.

I've always kind of marvelled at how PSB and Paradigm have such flat curves. It must have something to do with their access to the NRC facilities.

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/paradigm_studio20_v3/frequency_listeningwindow.gif

Paradigm Studio 20: Response curve is an average of five measurements:
on-axis, 15 degrees left and right off-axis,
15 degrees up and down off-axis
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/paradigm_studio20_v3/

Now that is flat!

Having said all this, I would say enough people think highly of AN that I wouldn't put much stock in the graphs. I'd want to hear them for myself.


I think your personal experience confirms the graph quite well. The treble does appear tilted up slightly in the graph. The bass hump is common to most speakers that don't have massive woofers, even this Studio 20 has one, although nicely smoothed out.

I agree, those Paradigms have an excellent response. I'm kinda partial to Canadian speakers myself. I've owned Axioms, and my personal favorite standmount is the Totem Mani-2. Not surprisingly both the Mani-2 and my Axiom M-80's have stellar response curves.

I know for a fact that both companies also made extensive use of the NRC data. Only one of the reasons Canadians make good speakers.

poppachubby
07-25-2010, 04:08 PM
I think your personal experience confirms the graph quite well. The treble does appear tilted up slightly in the graph. The bass hump is common to most speakers that don't have massive woofers, even this Studio 20 has one, although nicely smoothed out.

I agree, those Paradigms have an excellent response. I'm kinda partial to Canadian speakers myself. I've owned Axioms, and my personal favorite standmount is the Totem Mani-2. Not surprisingly both the Mani-2 and my Axiom M-80's have stellar response curves.

I know for a fact that both companies also made extensive use of the NRC data. Only one of the reasons Canadians make good speakers.

That is right, our scientific community did detailed analysis of many speakers. Oh yes, we know how to make them. Very good Geoff. I will tell the border that you may enter.

Pat D
07-25-2010, 04:40 PM
Pat D

One reviewer's word?

Constantine Soo Dagogo.com - Owns two pairs of AN E speakers http://www.dagogo.com/View-Staff.asp?hStaff=1

Jack Roberts dagogo.com AN E ( he moved to the Teresonic Ingeniums which is a fine move - not one I would make but he doesn't really have a room suitable so the move makes since - the point though he did own them http://www.dagogo.com/View-Article.asp?hArticle=351

Art Dudley - Owns AN E speakers http://www.stereophile.com/standloudspeakers/506an/index5.html

Chris Redmond - 6 moons - AN E speaker owner http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/christopher/christopher.html

Peter Van Willenswaard - Stereophile contributing measuring guru - owns AN E speakers http://www.stereophile.com/reference/357/index1.html

Hi-Fi Choice Magazine - uses AN E speakers as a reference. they bought a pair in 1992 and then again in 2003 - not available on line

Paul Messenger - Hi-fi Critic, Hi-Fi Choice and others - placed them on a list of the five best speakers made in their best of list.

Steven Rochlin - Editor of enjoythemusic.com - owns AN J speakers

Leonard Norwitz - classical composer and reviewer for enjoythemusic.com - Owns AN E speakers - he left his career to be a dealer because he liked them so much. In fact he owns

Playback Equipment:

Audio Note Io-Gold MC phono cartridge
Triplanar Tonearm
Voyd Reference 3-motor turntable
Audio Note AN-S9 MC transformer
Audio Note M8 preamplifier
Audio Note Baransu 300B amplifier
Audio Note AN-E/SE Sig
Audio Note silver interconnect & speaker wire http://www.enjoythemusic.com/magazine/equipment/0109/tj_full_music_300b_carbon.htm

Bob Neill - Positive Feedback Magazine - liked AN so much he left reviewing and became a dealer.

Wes Philips - Stereophile "Forget best sound of show, for sheer emotional delivery, timbral clarity, dynamic agility, and, yes, the highest fidelity, the Audio Note system may have been the best hi-fi I have ever heard. It was one of those magical moments that we audiophiles put up with all of the hassles for. After the Audio Note demo. the rest was noise, so I quit on a winner. Not many people who come to Vegas can say that." http://blog.stereophile.com/ces2009/ongaku_means_ecstasy/

This is just some off the top of my head - only 5% of their business in North America - plenty of magazines in Asia, the mid east, Russia etc. And that's just speakers. The numbers of reviewers who own CD players and Amps is also disproportionately high.

As far as I know, there's only one reviewer posting here.

I looked over a bit of what you linked for other reviewers. Of course, I've heard of Wes Philips and Art Dudley as they do reviews for Stereophile.

Stephen Rochlin of enjoy-the-music posts at AA; Bob Neill posts at AA and also deals in other speakers besides AN; there is a Chris Redmond at AA, too; Paul Messenger and Peter van Willensward I've heard of but that's about all. I know nothing at all about Leonard Norvitz, and all I know about Constantine Soo and Jack Roberts is what I found with the links you provided.

For my part, as speaker reviewers, I'll take John Atkinson, Andrew Marshall, and Doug Schneider over any and all of them.

frenchmon
07-25-2010, 04:42 PM
You know...if the speakers are that flawed and out of wac as they are according to the graphs...they might not be as consistent with reproducing good sound dynamics with many different types of music. They might sound good with a certain type of music, but not as good with other types of music. It seems to me the speakers might be to top end heavy, bottom end heavy or have a lost mid range.

PeruvianSkies
07-25-2010, 07:48 PM
You will know when you find a great speaker and it will be set apart from the multitude of good, average and poor speakers out there by one simple truth:

A great speaker gets out of the way and lets the music happen without interfering.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-25-2010, 07:56 PM
Art's listening room http://forum.stereophile.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/146/ and
http://forum.stereophile.com/photopost/showphoto.php/photo/205

Both the Harbeth and AN show quite a bit of the room in those measurements. Both speakers have been around 30+ years while their great speakers get dumped for new an unimproved models every 5 or less. It's laughable.

Even if the room is in those measurements, they are very poor. This is why there is parametric equalization and bass traps. This measurement could have benefited from both, at least on the bass end of things. The second issue is the response between 1000-10khz, it is damn right dreadful. This is the area that should really be the flattest, as it is right in our hearing's sweet spot. I would like to see what the response of the speaker would be with room treatments, because as it stands, you cannot convince me(as a person that voiced more HT and audio rooms than the average bear) that this is a good sounding speaker - room in the measurement or not.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-25-2010, 07:59 PM
As far as I know, there's only one reviewer posting here.

I looked over a bit of what you linked for other reviewers. Of course, I've heard of Wes Philips and Art Dudley as they do reviews for Stereophile.

Stephen Rochlin of enjoy-the-music posts at AA; Bob Neill posts at AA and also deals in other speakers besides AN; there is a Chris Redmond at AA, too; Paul Messenger and Peter van Willensward I've heard of but that's about all. I know nothing at all about Leonard Norvitz, and all I know about Constantine Soo and Jack Roberts is what I found with the links you provided.

For my part, as speaker reviewers, I'll take John Atkinson, Andrew Marshall, and Doug Schneider over any and all of them.

I would take Bob Hoda over all three of these guys in a snap.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-25-2010, 08:11 PM
I look at that graph and say it has a bit of a bass hump and then is pretty flat, but at 1kHz it starts climbing to the point that the treble becomes more prominent than the mid range or bass frequencies. Maybe I am misreading the graph, but I'm just trying to correlate my own impressions of listening to the speaker to what I see on paper.

I seriously doubt that hump at 100hz is all that audible, it is a bit broadband, and less than 5db from the trough at 1k. It may sound a little richer than a speaker with a flatter response at 100hz, but this speaker has the same measurements(minus the trough at 1k) as my custom made mini monitors that just arrived in my home theater in Oakland yesterday.



I had the RS5 for a while and found the treble to be way too prominent. I enjoyed just about every other aspect of the sound. It wasn't even that the treble was fatiguing, I could listen to the speaker for long periods of time, rather it was that the highs were so loud that they covered up the rest of the sound spectrum. If music didn't feature a lot of highs it was fine, but when it did forget about it.

Based on this measurement, it sound like your room was more a problem than this speaker. There is no way you are going to get a prominent treble based on the measurements from these speakers, so either your room is too live, or there was too much reverberation in the high frequencies(too many echo's)


I've always kind of marvelled at how PSB and Paradigm have such flat curves. It must have something to do with their access to the NRC facilities.

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/paradigm_studio20_v3/frequency_listeningwindow.gif

Paradigm Studio 20: Response curve is an average of five measurements:
on-axis, 15 degrees left and right off-axis,
15 degrees up and down off-axis
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/paradigm_studio20_v3/

Now that is flat!

Having said all this, I would say enough people think highly of AN that I wouldn't put much stock in the graphs. I'd want to hear them for myself.

I would say they probably need their hearing checked. Graph tell us what the speaker is actually doing frequency wise, but it is either complimentary to the ears, or it isn't.

YBArcam
07-25-2010, 09:26 PM
I seriously doubt that hump at 100hz is all that audible, it is a bit broadband, and less than 5db from the trough at 1k. It may sound a little richer than a speaker with a flatter response at 100hz, but this speaker has the same measurements(minus the trough at 1k) as my custom made mini monitors that just arrived in my home theater in Oakland yesterday.

I agree, it wasn't bass heavy. I just see a bit of a bump in that region is all. It had good bass performance, and was very fast and detailed. As I indicated, I had no issues from the bass through the mid range.


Based on this measurement, it sound like your room was more a problem than this speaker. There is no way you are going to get a prominent treble based on the measurements from these speakers, so either your room is too live, or there was too much reverberation in the high frequencies(too many echo's)

Yes, I realize that the increase in treble isn't drastic. I'm really unsure about the room. I've had treble issues with one other speaker (Wharfedale Evo2-10), and I couldn't pinpoint it. The thing is, other speakers sounded fine. My current 12L2, my old Tannoy Mercury F2 and Energy C-1, and the PMC TB2i when I had it on trial. Could it be the metal tweeter in the RS5? The Energy had a metal tweeter too though. The room is carpeted (wall to wall) has that ceiling with the bumps on it to absorb sound, and has lots of furniture. The walls are a little bare though.

Many people comment that the RS5 (most talk actually centers around the RS6) is too bright, so it's not just me. And I should emphasize that the graph posted here is of the RS6, and most people online who discuss the brightness in fact have that model. I had the RS5. Just worth pointing that out, even though I don't see the results being that much different. But who knows?

Just out of curiosity, when you read a freq. resp. graph, what kind of swing becomes significant in your mind? You mentioned less than 5dB as being not very significant, so I'm just wondering what would be. I'm guessing there must be a number, and perhaps it's also how gradual the changes in frequency response are. Bigger differences are probably okay as long as they are gradual.


I would say they probably need their hearing checked. Graph tell us what the speaker is actually doing frequency wise, but it is either complimentary to the ears, or it isn't.

I'd still be interested in hearing them. Graphs are fantastic tools and say a lot, but until you hear a speaker it's an educated guess. And that's not to put down graphs, as it could be a highly educated guess and a person's guesses could be right 95% of the time. But the listening confirms it.

Geoffcin
07-26-2010, 03:43 AM
I seriously doubt that hump at 100hz is all that audible, it is a bit broadband, and less than 5db from the trough at 1k. It may sound a little richer than a speaker with a flatter response at 100hz, but this speaker has the same measurements(minus the trough at 1k) as my custom made mini monitors that just arrived in my home theater in Oakland yesterday.
.
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/paradigm_studio20_v3/frequency_listeningwindow.gif
There appears to be some confusion here. I think the graph your commenting on here is for the wrong speaker. This graph is the Paradigm which is really excellent, and shows only a modest smooth hump centered at 100Hz. The Monitor Audio that YB Arcam commented on has the slightly rising treble response along with a much more pronounced hump at 80Hz.
http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/1893/306ma6fig37815499.jpg

theaudiohobby
07-26-2010, 04:48 AM
http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/paradigm_studio20_v3/frequency_listeningwindow.gif
There appears to be some confusion here. I think the graph your commenting on here is for the wrong speaker. This graph is the Paradigm which is really excellent, and shows only a modest smooth hump centered at 100Hz. The Monitor Audio that YB Arcam commented on has the slightly rising treble response along with a much more pronounced hump at 80Hz.
http://img831.imageshack.us/img831/1893/306ma6fig37815499.jpg

Soundstage and Stereophile use different methodologies for frequencies below 300z,, Sounstage's anechoic while Stereophile's are in nearfield 2pi space which results in a 3dB boast. When this differencce is taken account the midbass and upper bass of both speakers is broadly similar with the MA edging out the Paradigm in ultimate bass extension.

Geoffcin
07-26-2010, 05:35 AM
Soundstage and Stereophile use different methodologies for frequencies below 300z,, Sounstage's anechoic while Stereophile's are in nearfield 2pi space which results in a 3dB boast. When this differencce is taken account the midbass and upper bass of both speakers is broadly similar with the MA edging out the Paradigm in ultimate bass extension.

Hmmm...I had thought Sterophile subtracted the +3dB from the results?, but I do agree with you that the Monitor definately has the edge in bass extention. Of course that makes sense too as the Studio 20 is a bookshelf, while the MA is a floorstander. Still they both have pretty decent graphs, with the MA having a slightly treble foreward presentation.

Pat D
07-26-2010, 07:29 AM
I would take Bob Hoda over all three of these guys in a snap.

I had to look him up. Acoustical consultant. Does he do reviews? I would have a hard time getting his input unless he does.

I used to know a guy who worked for a dealership in Ottawa who had an astonishingly good ear for speakers--I think he must have been a participant in Dr. Floyd Toole's blind speaker tests. He used to tell some stories about some demonstrations Dr. Toole had done. I haven't seen him for over 20 years.

frenchmon
07-26-2010, 10:06 AM
Boy....I see graphs bring out the real audionerds. Ima have to learn to get nerdy.

RGA
07-26-2010, 10:24 AM
The issue was that I was supposedly the only reviewer who liked or supported Audio Note speakers - you have two Stereophile reviewers who own the speakers and a third who claimed the room with AN E in was the best sound reproduction he has ever heard.

Wes Philips ought to carry more weight over Art perhaps because Art is a tube High efficiency guy so he is biased to that technology. Wes Philips is not - he is a SS Harman/Toole speaker guy and this is a quick list of some of the stuff he has reviewed or owned:

Canton Vento Reference 1 DC loudspeaker
Wilson Audio Specialties WATT/Puppy System 8 loudspeaker
Vandersteen Quatro Wood loudspeaker
Definitive Technology Mythos STS SuperTower loudspeaker
Thiel CS3.7 loudspeaker
YG Acoustics Anat Reference II Professional loudspeaker
KEF Reference 201/2 loudspeaker
Dynaudio Confidence C1
Usher Audio Technology Be-718
M&K S-150
Paradigm Atom Monitor 5 (also reviewed the active upscale models a decade or so ago)
Dynaudio Focus 140
Sonics Anima (same designer as Audio Physic)
Proac Response One

"Forget best sound of show, for sheer emotional delivery, timbral clarity, dynamic agility, and, yes, the highest fidelity, the Audio Note system may have been the best hi-fi I have ever heard. It was one of those magical moments that we audiophiles put up with all of the hassles for.

After the Audio Note demo. the rest was noise, so I quit on a winner. Not many people who come to Vegas can say that". http://blog.stereophile.com/ces2009/ongaku_means_ecstasy/

So when he makes the comments it is NOT coming from a tube HE lover it is coming from an background rooted in Toole/Harman/Thiele kind of designs. And that was my only point. Close the book on the graphs and give the damn things a good long healthy listen because I can read the graphs just the same as everyone else. They are not pretty, SET amps are not pretty, AN no times oversampling CD players are not pretty - a bunch of not pretty all added together should offer downright terrible sound. And yet Audio Note is often at or near the top of sounding better at most audio shows (without any room treatments versus rooms with it). If virtually all of the subjective opinion concurs in different localities all around the world at every show then the smoke should lead one to think there must be some fire.

You may say Art likes the bad measuring stuff - fine but Wes is not loathe to. Nor would a magazine select the speaker to be used as a reference to judge other equipment against. Both the Harbeth and the Audio Note have in numerous cases very similar whacky measurements which is largely room related. Martin Colloms (the measurements guy for Stereophile for many years) measured the AN E in a room and noted "I checked out the speaker in the lab and confirmed the high 94dB sensitivity, with 3.6 ohm minimum impedance, a wide 28Hz to 20kHz (+/-3dB) response when adjusted for near wall palcement, and a 29Hz tuned port with an in-room -6dB point of 18Hz at reasonable drive levels."

hi-fi Choice also measured the AN E and it did well. No it's not the best there is against the standard mini-monitor but then as I said years ago - it has to measure quite a lot differently in order for it to sound different. In this case different is better in my opinion. After listening to about a hundred rooms at CES - it illustrates the importance of actually bothering to listen because it is pretty clear that the best stuff is not the stuff that necessarily measures all that great which illustrates the point that even the guys firmly rooted in theory can change their mind (like Wes or Colloms) if they actually listen.

Geoffcin
07-26-2010, 10:48 AM
Boy....I see graphs bring out the real audionerds. Ima have to learn to get nerdy.

Yeah, in my profession I read a lot of graphs. If the data is plotted correctly then it's pretty hard to fake results. I like them because you can see right away if something is going wrong or performing poorly.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-26-2010, 11:00 AM
I had to look him up. Acoustical consultant. Does he do reviews? I would have a hard time getting his input unless he does.

I used to know a guy who worked for a dealership in Ottawa who had an astonishingly good ear for speakers--I think he must have been a participant in Dr. Floyd Toole's blind speaker tests. He used to tell some stories about some demonstrations Dr. Toole had done. I haven't seen him for over 20 years.

Bob Hoda is an acoustical consultant, but he does far more than just acoustical work. He does speaker voicing as well, and the results he produces are staggering.

Geoffcin
07-26-2010, 11:01 AM
The issue was that I was supposedly the only reviewer who liked or supported Audio Note speakers - you have two Stereophile reviewers who own the speakers and a third who claimed the room with AN E in was the best sound reproduction he has ever heard.

People will aways like flawed speakers, especially ones they own. Heck I luv my newly re-foamed EPI 180's! I'll put the up against any 2 way speaker with an 8" woofer and 1" dome tweter you can find. Not really a fair fight though as my EPI 180's speakers have 2 woofers and 2 tweeters per cabinet so they will absolutely smoke any speaker with half as many drivers.

http://www.humanspeakers.com/e/images/epi180c.jpg

RGA
07-26-2010, 11:46 AM
Yeah, in my profession I read a lot of graphs. If the data is plotted correctly then it's pretty hard to fake results. I like them because you can see right away if something is going wrong or performing poorly.

If measurements mattered to you then you would not buy Magnepan which have some of the most godawful measurements in the world of loudspeakers - they're not exactly wonders of modern design nor are they even remotely accurate in any sense of the word. And yet you bought them without any actual evidence that they measure even remotely well. Both of these are the Magnepan 3.6

Geoffcin
07-26-2010, 01:07 PM
If measurements mattered to you then you would not buy Magnepan which have some of the most godawful measurements in the world of loudspeakers - they're not exactly wonders of modern design nor are they even remotely accurate in any sense of the word. And yet you bought them without any actual evidence that they measure even remotely well. Both of these are the Magnepan 3.6

Did you read what Atkinson wrote? "As I have written before in these pages, measuring physically large speakers with in-room quasi-anechoic techniques is in some ways a fruitless task."

The Magnepans are true wonders of modern design. Continual refinement has been done over 4 decades. I know because I had my first III series back in the 80's and there's been 5 upgrades since. The recently released Magnepan 1.7 has been an unmitigated hit with every reviwer;
http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/lasvegas2010/images/stories/jan10a/magnepan_room1.jpg

While it's a huge upgrade to the 1 line, in typical Magnepan understated style it just moves the designation from 1.6 to 1.7

http://www.avguide.com/blog/magnepan-mg-17-unqualified-triumph

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13645_3-20010500-47.html?tag=mncol;title

Now the audio world waits with bated breath for the coming of the new Magnepan 3.7!

As it works out in my room for my Magnepan 3.6r speakers, the -3dB for bass is 32Hz. Using a corrected curve with a Rat shack dB meter I get +/- 3dB from 32Hz to 18kHz. The midrange is dead flat from 400Hz- 3kHz +/- 1 dB, with a slightly rising treble response after that. Probably why the sound so good with tube amps that slightly roll off the top end.

Mr Peabody
07-26-2010, 01:29 PM
I love this, it's like politics, every one is digging up the dirt on each others speakers :)

Geoff, in referring to the EPI, you aren't incenuating the more the drivers the better the sound are you? :)

Geoffcin
07-26-2010, 01:53 PM
I love this, it's like politics, every one is digging up the dirt on each others speakers :)

Geoff, in referring to the EPI, you aren't incenuating the more the drivers the better the sound are you? :)

No, just that my 30+ year old 2-way EPI 180 speakers with 1" thick particle board construction and rudimentry cross bracing will knock a thin walled unbraced flabby coned two way off it's stand. Gracefully too, as the 1" inverted dome "air spring" tweeter is as sweet as Tipilo honey!
http://www.humanspeakers.com/e/images/epi50.jpg

theaudiohobby
07-26-2010, 02:00 PM
Bob Hoda is an acoustical consultant, but he does far more than just acoustical work. He does speaker voicing as well, and the results he produces are staggering.

The only wrinkle, hardly anyone, at least here, has heard of him :biggrin5:

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-26-2010, 02:04 PM
The only wrinkle, hardly anyone, at least here, has heard of him :biggrin5:

A lot of people here don't know or have not heard of a lot of things, but it does not erase the legitimacy of who they are or what they have accomplished.

RGA
07-26-2010, 02:13 PM
Geoffcin

The EPI is a red herring - nothing to do with anything whatsoever.

Yes JA makes excuses for lots of speakers that advertise and doesn't offer the excuse for speaker makers who don't. Further - JA speculates that "MAYBE" the speaker would be better but he has not produced any "projected" graphs or any evidence whatsoever at how the speaker would "actually" measure had he had the appropriate tools - for all you know it could be just as horrendous if not more so. If he can't measure speakers properly then why do them at all - there is nothing in those graphs that I can see anyone with average intelligence can read and say "They will be perfectly flat in my room and are bastions of accuracy." And worse they are very noticably audibly out of kilter - far worse than the Audio Note's but hey that's why my dealer carries both AN E and Magnepans. You'd think at least ONE of them would take the Magnepans over the AN E. In fact it would be nice to hear at least one of them even make comments that would indicate that any of them even "Like" them.

Geoffcin
07-26-2010, 02:21 PM
What you call a "Red Herring" is possible the best use of a 1" tweeter and 8" woofer ever devised. Winslow Burhoe designed a myriad of speakers around this "module" and for many years they competed well with others of similar design.
http://www.humanspeakers.com/e/images/epi-original-line.jpg

I'm sorry to say those years are long past now, but I still enjoy my flawed 2-way speakers, just like you do yours.

RGA
07-26-2010, 02:28 PM
Yes and you enjoy your flawed panels as well - great - we all enjoy imperfect loudspeakers.

RGA
07-26-2010, 02:53 PM
I have to say it's always interesting that people will stay with theory above all other matters. I personally don't care if you like what I like - I like Green and you like Red whatever but at least LOOK at the bloody colour Green without saying saying - well I know what green looks like because I have seen Yellow and I have seen Blue and since those two colours make Green I now know exactly what every shade of Green looks like and they all suck because I am not partial to Blue or Yellow.

Lots of speakers have quirky measurements taken in room or measured in ways the designers often did not intend them to be measure. Accept the fact that measurements tell you partial truths and they could be in error. just because it's in a magazine or online does not the truth it make. If you want measurements - Bryston/PMC or Bryston/ATC will be about as good as it gets for land of the living prices. I grew up in the Bryston/PMC belief system so I get it - read some graphs, their pro-gear so it has to be the best. For anyone to switch and stay switched away fro such gear it has to have something - euphoria is nice but it doesn't last.

My point is to make a serious audition. I think there is enough in the review press to warrant serious auditions because the number of reviewers who own them versus the numbers of speaker sales it's way out of proportion.

I posted that Chris Redmond of 6 Moons owned the AN E but take Steve Marsh of the same magzines: "David had a Level 3 system on display in what turned out to be, for me, the best sound of the show.../...The Audio Note room had the most natural sound and fully developed harmonics that always amazes me when considering the seemingly simple two-way speakers Audio Note champions. It was not just the tapes that won me over, either. David played several LPs for me including Miles Davis' Sketches of Spain and Alisson Krauss record and a couple of blues records. I commented that the sound quality, particularly with the Alisson Krauss record, closely approached that of the tape.
http://www.6moons.com/industryfeatures/vsac20083/vsac_2.html

And at VSAC - A guy who has never heard of them

"A nice big room for a rather average looking system. But this collection of gear really did fill the room with life-like music. .....meanwhile, he was loading another reel of tape in the StellaVox. It's a small 'Nagra-like' reel to reel machine. Someone mentioned that it could play 1 7/8 to 15 ips. The music I heard was big-band circa 1960 or so. Nobody said who it was that was playing. I didn't ask. I hung around for three numbers. Easily, this was the best sounding exhibit that I heard during my visits to the various exhibitor rooms. There was astoundingly good prat. This system has the 'timing thing' very close to being right. Foot-tappin, finger-snappin', and at times jaw-dropping, good music. The speakers and the vacuum tube electronics were Audio Note UK. They have my attention.

.../...Here's a Teres 265 with the Verus option. It was spinning a Glen Miller Lp. There was some good rhythmic 'snap' to the sound coming off this system. Maybe Chris Brady, the principal at Teres, is on to something with this 'direct coupled' wheel driven turntable of his. But after coming from the Audio Note room, everything else sounded.......... much less. -- http://www.theanalogdept.com/vsac08.htm

Anyway -it's up to you - frankly if people actually do want to try them and they like them they'll have to wait forever to get any anyway. It's getting into the year long wait list territory so it's probably best to avoid auditioning them just in case I am right.:12:

Geoffcin
07-26-2010, 03:11 PM
Yes and you enjoy your flawed panels as well - great - we all enjoy imperfect loudspeakers.

Your damn right I enjoy them! I enjoy them so much I don't feel the need to prattle on about them incessantly, or hijack every thread I post in about how wonderful they are, or how x or y has them and thinks they're better than heroin mainlined directly into the carotid. No, if I did crap like that people would write me off as a common "fanboy" or worse, someone who has to prove to HIMSELF that he didn't get taken to the cleaners buying aged flawed technology that just can't compete with modern designed speakers. No, you'll never catch me doing something so sad and pathetic.

theaudiohobby
07-26-2010, 03:15 PM
A lot of people here don't know or have not heard of a lot of things, but it does not erase the legitimacy of who they are or what they have accomplished.

Very true..

poppachubby
07-26-2010, 03:27 PM
Honestly, can any of you guys say that you bought speakers based on a graph or stats?!? Has it even made up 20% of your decision?

I will be honest, I could care less about graphs and such. If they grab my attention and sound good to me, that's enough.

You guys are getting all excited about speakers because of some charts? C'mon...

Geoffcin
07-26-2010, 03:38 PM
Honestly, can any of you guys say that you bought speakers based on a graph or stats?!? Has it even made up 20% of your decision?

I will be honest, I could care less about graphs and such. If they grab my attention and sound good to me, that's enough.

You guys are getting all excited about speakers because of some charts? C'mon...

I think your missing the point. Graphs don't have personal preferences, people do. When I read a review I want to see the graph too. Just like driving, I find it easier to find my way with a map rather than someones subjective directions. I don't think anyone gets excited about a graph, but if it reinforces the findings of the reviewer then it gets my attention. Certainly the Axiom sub that I reviewed was superb by any standard, but when you see the ruler flat response (they use DSP to achieve this) you can really say WOW, this is technology that works!

RGA
07-26-2010, 03:43 PM
Deleted - unnecessary

Geoffcin
07-26-2010, 04:00 PM
Then again if you REALLY liked them you might want to rave about them - not rave worthy obviously. Magnepan is older technology. And you don't want to know what the parts cost in those stand up carpets. Talk about taken to the cleaners LOL.

Actually they are quite easy to clean. I'll admit that they do take some room to make them sound their best. Probably not the best speaker for a small apartment. However if you've got the room, and a decent amp there's nothing quite like them! Don't believe me? I don't care as long as this little guy does!

http://forums.audioreview.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=6448&stc=1&d=1260580760

Pat D
07-26-2010, 04:13 PM
Geoffcin

The EPI is a red herring - nothing to do with anything whatsoever.

Yes JA makes excuses for lots of speakers that advertise and doesn't offer the excuse for speaker makers who don't. Further - JA speculates that "MAYBE" the speaker would be better but he has not produced any "projected" graphs or any evidence whatsoever at how the speaker would "actually" measure had he had the appropriate tools - for all you know it could be just as horrendous if not more so. If he can't measure speakers properly then why do them at all - there is nothing in those graphs that I can see anyone with average intelligence can read and say "They will be perfectly flat in my room and are bastions of accuracy." And worse they are very noticably audibly out of kilter - far worse than the Audio Note's but hey that's why my dealer carries both AN E and Magnepans. You'd think at least ONE of them would take the Magnepans over the AN E. In fact it would be nice to hear at least one of them even make comments that would indicate that any of them even "Like" them.

Your ignorance of measurements is appalling for a reviewer. In the past, I have advised you to simply ignore the measurements if they don't mean anything to you. John Atkinson's suite of measurements isn't designed for dipoles and is not ideal for them. The results should be interpreted significantly differently below several hundred Hz and JA indicates this.

http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/720/index7.html

Why don't you look at the room measurements of a dipole speaker such as the Quad 989 or the older ESL-63?

http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/720/index9.html

http://stereophile.com/floorloudspeakers/416/index11.html

See, the room measurements look much better than the quasi-anechoic ones.

Mr Peabody
07-26-2010, 04:17 PM
Your damn right I enjoy them! I enjoy them so much I don't feel the need to prattle on about them incessantly, or hijack every thread I post in about how wonderful they are, or how x or y has them and thinks they're better than heroin mainlined directly into the carotid. No, if I did crap like that people would write me off as a common "fanboy" or worse, someone who has to prove to HIMSELF that he didn't get taken to the cleaners buying aged flawed technology that just can't compete with modern designed speakers. No, you'll never catch me doing something so sad and pathetic.

Glad we have no one like that here.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-26-2010, 04:23 PM
Glad we have no one like that here.

Snicker, snicker, snicker.....

Mr Peabody
07-26-2010, 04:28 PM
Honestly, can any of you guys say that you bought speakers based on a graph or stats?!? Has it even made up 20% of your decision?

I will be honest, I could care less about graphs and such. If they grab my attention and sound good to me, that's enough.

You guys are getting all excited about speakers because of some charts? C'mon...

Graphs........ we don't need no stinking graphs!

hifitommy
07-26-2010, 04:44 PM
oh NO! planar speakers MEASURE poorly. damm, and i was BSing myself into thinking that my MMGs sound good. and my friend's martin logan reQuests....duhhh! i must have been hallucinating.

next time, before i trust my ears, i am going to have the response curve of the speaker i am considering tattooed on my inner eyelids.

RGA (http://forums.audioreview.com/member.php?u=230039)--Deleted - unnecessary--gee, i hope that was a graph.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-26-2010, 05:25 PM
oh NO! planar speakers MEASURE poorly. damm, and i was BSing myself into thinking that my MMGs sound good. and my friend's martin logan reQuests....duhhh! i must have been hallucinating.

next time, before i trust my ears, i am going to have the response curve of the speaker i am considering tattooed on my inner eyelids.

RGA (http://forums.audioreview.com/member.php?u=230039)--Deleted - unnecessary--gee, i hope that was a graph.

They can measure poorly and still meet an individuals taste. A speaker that has excellent measurements usually sound better to many people, not just an individual.

Pat D
07-26-2010, 05:42 PM
Honestly, can any of you guys say that you bought speakers based on a graph or stats?!? Has it even made up 20% of your decision?

I will be honest, I could care less about graphs and such. If they grab my attention and sound good to me, that's enough.

You guys are getting all excited about speakers because of some charts? C'mon...

I have used measurements (graphs, as you put it) to screen out speakers for some years now. I now look for really outstanding frequency response and horizontal dispersion and not too finicky vertical dispersion. I can't audition every speaker out there so I have to cut down the numbers somehow, and it may as have an objective basis. So far, the speakers that qualify have sounded really good.

I first heard my current speakers before anyone reviewed them and they sounded fantastic. I usually try to listen to a speaker using full orchestra with massed strings, male and female vocals, mixed chorus, and piano. Most speakers don't pass, and the ones that do I try with a lot more material. So I wasn't surprised that they measured very well.

Now, I have gotten better at this with time, but you know, I have always gotten speakers that I like for the long term. I don't change them very often. Measurements can help.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-26-2010, 05:45 PM
Honestly, can any of you guys say that you bought speakers based on a graph or stats?!? Has it even made up 20% of your decision?

Measurements are exactly half of my decision making process, and listening is the other. A speaker with a very good measured frequency response is like having a blank canvas. When you put that speaker in a room there is less equalization needed(you just need to tweak it a bit), and quite frankly less room treatments as well because you are already starting off with a well behaved set of speakers. If you sit closer to the speaker than you are to the nearest walls, you need very little eq.

If the speaker measures poorly, its like having a bad painting already done. If you try to fix that painting so it looks better, you often make it worse than it already is. That is the benefit of paying attention to a speakers measured response, and why some mag include measurements along with reviews.


I will be honest, I could care less about graphs and such. If they grab my attention and sound good to me, that's enough.

You can do this because you are the sole listener. However if your system is shared by others, or will be heard by others, it better to achieve a frequency response that appeals to a greater amount of people. I can convince myself that something sounds good, but can I convince others? That is the question.


You guys are getting all excited about speakers because of some charts? C'mon...

If you don't have some standard to abide by, then you are guaranteed chaos. This is why there are standards for film presentation, standards for speaker placement, standards for proper calibration of your speakers and video display devices. With a standard, you can make recordings that are transferable from speaker to speaker.

One of the best things I learned from Bob Hoda is that you use identical equalization curves for every listening room you have, and regardless of the speakers you use. That way you are much closer to what is heard in the recording studio no matter what system you play the recording on, and no matter which room it sits in.

Pat D
07-26-2010, 06:15 PM
They can measure poorly and still meet an individuals taste. A speaker that has excellent measurements usually sound better to many people, not just an individual.

In many ways, dipole speakers do not perform the same way in rooms that forward radiating speakers do because of the fact that the back wave is of opposite polarity to the front wave. John Atkinson's suite of measurements for Stereophile is not particularly well suited to dipole speakers. A few things come to mind. The anechoic or quasi-anechoic curves may show a big peak in the bass which is not there in the room measurements. Some of them are fairly well balanced in a room. The back wave can offer a pleasing spaciousness. Also, out to the sides, the front and back wave cancel each other out pretty well.

I found Quad ESL-63s to be very placement sensitive but they can sound very good on a lot of music. However, bass balance is difficult and it is hard to get piano and male vocals to sound right.

On the other hand, my current monitors are more accurate, are easier to place, have a much wider sweet area, and it is easy to get male vocals and piano to sound good. Some recordings that were problematic on the Quads sound fine on them.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-26-2010, 06:29 PM
In many ways, dipole speakers do not perform the same way in rooms that forward radiating speakers do because of the fact that the back wave is of opposite polarity to the front wave. John Atkinson's suite of measurements for Stereophile is not particularly well suited to dipole speakers. A few things come to mind. The anechoic or quasi-anechoic curves may show a big peak in the bass which is not there in the room measurements. Some of them are fairly well balanced in a room. The back wave can offer a pleasing spaciousness. Also, out to the sides, the front and back wave cancel each other out pretty well.

I found Quad ESL-63s to be very placement sensitive but they can sound very good on a lot of music. However, bass balance is difficult and it is hard to get piano and male vocals to sound right.

On the other hand, my current monitors are more accurate, are easier to place, have a much wider sweet area, and it is easy to get male vocals and piano to sound good. Some recordings that were problematic on the Quads sound fine on them.

Being a HT installer for many years(acoustical and speaker placement and setup), I am very familiar with how dipoles measure. IMO, you really have to use a combined speaker/room measurement to really understand what the speaker is doing. The problem with dipoles is when you do find room born problems, they are really hard to correct without killing the speakers pure frequency response.

Personally, I don't like the artificial spaciousness of in room reflections coming from my front speakers, which is why I usually choose speakers with more controlled directivity. They require less room treatments, are easier to place, have less room borne colorations, and sound better overall to me.

Mr Peabody
07-26-2010, 06:47 PM
If you don't have some standard to abide by, then you are guaranteed chaos. This is why there are standards for film presentation, standards for speaker placement, standards for proper calibration of your speakers and video display devices. With a standard, you can make recordings that are transferable from speaker to speaker.

One of the best things I learned from Bob Hoda is that you use identical equalization curves for every listening room you have, and regardless of the speakers you use. That way you are much closer to what is heard in the recording studio no matter what system you play the recording on, and no matter which room it sits in.[/QUOTE]

Are you talking about EQ of the master? At first read your comment sounds absurd If I analyse my room and set the EQ, the same EQ curve would make havoc in your room. That's sort of the point of EQ is to attempt to correct room interactions and since not many rooms are the same a single EQ curve defeats that purpose. I believe a single EQ curve would equate to no tone controls at all.

PeruvianSkies
07-26-2010, 06:48 PM
Can someone who knows more about the graphs tell me more about my main speakers?

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/psb_platinum_t6/


I understand most of this, but not all of it and really didn't do much research into the graphs when I bought them, I demoed dozens of speakers before I bought these and they were the first speaker in my budget at the time that disappeared and allowed me to fall in love with all the music I heard through them.

I have yet to find a speaker in their price range or nearly twice their price that is comparable to me, but everyone has different taste.

RGA
07-26-2010, 06:49 PM
Deleted - I won't discuss the topic with people who don't audition. enjoy your speakers

RGA
07-26-2010, 07:18 PM
deleted - enjoy your speakers

Geoffcin
07-27-2010, 03:48 AM
Can someone who knows more about the graphs tell me more about my main speakers?

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/psb_platinum_t6/


I understand most of this, but not all of it and really didn't do much research into the graphs when I bought them, I demoed dozens of speakers before I bought these and they were the first speaker in my budget at the time that disappeared and allowed me to fall in love with all the music I heard through them.

I have yet to find a speaker in their price range or nearly twice their price that is comparable to me, but everyone has different taste.

I think this thread is too limited to go over the suite of specs on your speaker. From a cursory view though they are not only comprehensive, but quite stellar!

Feanor
07-27-2010, 04:17 AM
They can measure poorly and still meet an individuals taste. A speaker that has excellent measurements usually sound better to many people, not just an individual.
As mentioned already, this is a fact scientifically proven by Floyd Toole.

theaudiohobby
07-27-2010, 08:23 AM
I am not going to go further down the AN measurements spectrum - The big ass thread that dealt with it at the time is here - Fortunately poster Donald North solved the issue showing JA was clearly wrong and if he's wrong about that he's wrong about other things. http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=hug&n=107451&highlight=peter+qvortrup
As Pat D said earlier it seems you do not understand measurements at all. Worse still, you want to have your cake and eat it, could you elaborate on why JA measurements are clearly wrong. Earlier in the thread Feanor pointed out a potential problem with AN-E design, JA measurements merely confirm it. The quasi-anechoic measurements are cleaner but its pretty clear that this speaker is idiosyncratic.
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/506ANEfig4.jpg

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-27-2010, 08:25 AM
Are you talking about EQ of the master? At first read your comment sounds absurd If I analyse my room and set the EQ, the same EQ curve would make havoc in your room.

You cannot EQ the master sitting in your home, it is already done in the studio. You don't have access to the master in your home.

So we get this really clear, when I speak of EQ, I am talking about frequencies under 200hz, which is the point at which the room becomes more dominate than the output of the speakers.

In all of my rooms I EQ for a flat response from 40-200hz, and provide a 6db per octave rise to create a house curve under 40hz down to 20hz which coincides with our hearing insensitivies at lower frequencies. Everyone of my systems has this frequency curve, so most recordings (except its spatial presentation) sound pretty much the same from system to system. All of the speakers I have chosen have a pretty flat frequency response in the anechoic chamber, so most of the problem I have with them are room related.



That's sort of the point of EQ is to attempt to correct room interactions and since not many rooms are the same a single EQ curve defeats that purpose. I believe a single EQ curve would equate to no tone controls at all.

Correcting room interactions is exactly why I use EQ, but I also use EQ to create a house curve that is tranferable from room to room. Some rooms may need more EQ than others to acheive this goal. The goal in the end is to have rooms that have equal frequency curves, even if the size of the rooms are completely different. This takes a lot of measurements and patience to acheive.

RGA
07-27-2010, 08:40 AM
deleted - enjoy your speakers.

Geoffcin
07-27-2010, 08:53 AM
As Pat D said earlier it seems you do not understand measurements at all. Worse still, you want to have your cake and eat it, could you elaborate on why JA measurements are clearly wrong. Earlier in the thread Feanor pointed out a potential problem with AN-E design, JA measurements merely confirm it. The quasi-anechoic measurements are cleaner but its pretty clear that this speaker is idiosyncratic.
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/506ANEfig4.jpg


Wow, that's pretty knarly. That's a qasi-anechoic graph?....OY! With that large peak at 200Hz (very similar to a BOSE cube), and with a deep suck out after 1kHz, and some pretty mean hashiness between 1kHz and 4kHz, idiosyncratic is a very kind way of calling it!

RGA
07-27-2010, 09:16 AM
The thing is I am accused of not understanding measurements - it is clear that most of you do not. A frequency response graph measured at a given SPL say 90db - on the left. This graph measures frequency and decibel level at those frequencies. At 200hz the speaker is +5db and 1khz the speaker shows a -4db dip which is not all that bad and rather common for two way loudspeakers. JA notes that despite the 1khz dip "What's interesting about this graph is that it suggests, at least in a room of small to medium size, that the discontinuities in the speaker's on-axis response will, to some extent, be compensated for by its off-axis behavior. The dispersion has a flare just above 1kHz, where the on-axis response has that step down. Similarly, the slight off-axis flare in the octave at the base of the tweeter's passband coincides with a slight lack of on-axis energy"

The speaker is to be corner loaded with a fair amount of toe in - it is meant to be positioned therefore "off axis" and it would have been nice if it was measured in the location the speaker is meant to be placed and "positioned" properly in that location. AN measures the speakers at common listening positions and is going for a neutral balance at the listening chair. I see the speaker measuring better off-axis and coupled with the on axis measurements factoring in floor bounce, side and back wall parameters the midrange will yield quite a solid neutral balance - certainly does to the ear - though yes it does step down but that is preferable to the opposite.

At 10khz there is a +2.5db rise. None of this is particularly out of kilter with Colloms measurements that indicated 28hz - 20khz +/- 3db. In room the speaker is off Colloms marks by 2db but then it was not corner loaded. The speaker indicates a -6db point at 20khz and perhaps -7db point at 23khz (hard to say without seeing the next line) I read from this graph that the tuning port is about 28-29hz a -5db point at about 26-27hz and 23-24hz at -10db - the speakers was not measured in corners which add a significant boost so Colloms and AN" published specs on bass and treble seem more fairly reasonable.

"A loudspeaker placed in a corner can gain up to 18dB in SPL at very low frequencies with perfectly rigid walls." The AN E measurements don't need those 18db in fact to get 18hz - 6db they only need 14db. The graph clearly shows a 17hz to 18hz point at -20db. It is clear that Colloms and AN's 18hz - 6db point corner loaded is perfectly reasonable from the set of measurements provided. Moreover the measurements conducted by hi-Fi Choice noted that the presence band was about 2db higher than rest of the treble band which is fair to say. thanks I know how to read the fricking graph - obviously some people here need a refresher. I am surprised that JA says " I'm not surprised that Audio Note recommends placement close to the wall behind it" and then did not do the measurements from the corner - he was obviously told how the speaker should be placed and then wonders why the speaker didn't meet spec. WTF? I know he doesn't like Peter - but you really should send an e-mail and ask a question or two before making assumptions.

theaudiohobby
07-27-2010, 09:41 AM
Wow, that's pretty knarly. That's a quasi-anechoic graph?....OY! With that large peak at 200Hz (very similar to a BOSE cube), and with a deep suck out after 1kHz, and some pretty mean hashiness between 1kHz and 4kHz, idiosyncratic is a very kind way of calling it!

Well, it's quasi-anechoic up till 300Hz, below that JA used the nearfield technique to measured the bass in 2pi space. So the peak at 200Hz is a bit exaggerated, but the various idiosyncracies between 1- 10kHz are real.

Geoffcin
07-27-2010, 09:46 AM
There's a lot that this graph doesn't show but what it does I understand quite well.
http://www.stereophile.com/images/archivesart/506ANEfig4.jpg

it's pretty clear that a smooth response is NOT what this designer is after. In addition the designer has buit in what appears to be a "loudness" curve with hinges at 200Hz and 10kHz. That kind of "cheating" in design was common 30 years ago, but lately manufacturers of quality modern speakers strive for a flatter response.

RGA
07-27-2010, 09:55 AM
So you believe a flatter response such as this is ideal?As you can see there is a 2.5db boost in the 100hz region, a -2.5db drop at 300hz and a little more at 800hz with a 2.5db spike at 900hz and then dropping again between 1kz and 2khz a significant spike at 9-10khz and a rise which with good HF hearing will may well be viewed as a bright sounding loudspeaker. I find this speaker to be treble heavy (not ridiculously so and i have seen worse - but this is considered to be a "good" measuring loudspeaker - good for the industry because consumers will keep the upgrade mill going and people will keep reading the magazines after they want to trade these bright boys in) - for me it would be fatigue inducing over long listening sessions.

Geoffcin
07-27-2010, 10:08 AM
This graph has half the divergence that the previous one did. +/- 2.5dB over a good portion of it's range. The smooth hump at 100Hz is much more acceptable than a high peak at 220Hz.

RGA
07-27-2010, 10:13 AM
The corner loading will bring that down - Stereophile noted that the peak was 2db higher than it would be anyway. The AN E is has an elevation then of around 2db without the boost JA noted which is not all that bothersome - not as bothersome as a speaker that clearly has a shelved up treble band. The corner loading will add spl to the low bass - not the midbass and thus the entire bass frequency band would be considerably flatter assuming they position it properly. I have seen the measurements done by Audiophile in Germany and it indicates that. Though both graphs and Hi-Fi Choice do note that the AN E's presnce band is a couple db higher than the treble band - my contention is that having a few db emphasis in that region is a LOT LOT LOT better than having any slight emphasis in the treble band. With partnering amplification that has a weaker output in the bass (SET) can offset the gain in the bass region - since it is designed to work with specific amplification. This alters the speaker's output.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-27-2010, 11:00 AM
The thing is I am accused of not understanding measurements - it is clear that most of you do not. A frequency response graph measured at a given SPL say 90db - on the left. This graph measures frequency and decibel level at those frequencies. At 200hz the speaker is +5db and 1khz the speaker shows a -4db dip which is not all that bad and rather common for two way loudspeakers. .

Rich, personally(and I am only speaking for myself) I have an extremely clear understanding of how to read a speakers frequency measurements. With a minor degree in acoustical analysis and a ton of experience in HT and audio setups with an emphasis on room acoustics, speaker setup, and balancing, reading them was an everyday part of my life.

I have three two way mini monitor system that do not have this kind of response deviation between 200-1khz. Your explaination of a 5db peak at 200hz, and a 4db dip 1khz represents a frequency response of +-9db between 200-1khz. That quite frankly is a horrible measurement by any sane person's standard. Two of my mini monitor systems(the same speakers in different rooms) over that same range have a .5db deviation, and the other is 1.5db deviation. This is an in room measurement without the benefit of EQ.

This speaker based on those measurements is going to have a rich, overly ripe mid bass character, and with a recess of 4db at 1khz, and a recovered response at 4k will cause instruments whose fundamentals lie in those frequencies to pop in out of the mix randomly. Having a 4db deviance in the critical 1-4khz area is just poor speaker voicing, I don't care who designed the speaker.

Geoffcin
07-27-2010, 11:00 AM
You might think so, but with an impedance chart like this;
http://stereophile.com/images/archivesart/506ANEFIG1.jpg
Who can tell what kind of interaction with a high output impedance tube amp will be. You might have +/-10dB or more!!

theaudiohobby
07-27-2010, 11:02 AM
So you believe a flatter response such as this is ideal?As you can see there is a 2.5db boost in the 100hz region, a -2.5db drop at 300hz and a little more at 800hz with a 2.5db spike at 900hz and then dropping again between 1kz and 2khz a significant spike at 9-10khz and a rise which with good HF hearing will may well be viewed as a bright sounding loudspeaker. I find this speaker to be treble heavy (not ridiculously so and i have seen worse - but this is considered to be a "good" measuring loudspeaker - good for the industry because consumers will keep the upgrade mill going and people will keep reading the magazines after they want to trade these bright boys in) - for me it would be fatigue inducing over long listening sessions.

This speaker is essentially flat below 300Hz, the 2.5dB boost at 100Hz in the graph is a measurement artifact.

RGA
07-27-2010, 11:38 AM
Rich, personally(and I am only speaking for myself) I have an extremely clear understanding of how to read a speakers frequency measurements. With a minor degree in acoustical analysis and a ton of experience in HT and audio setups with an emphasis on room acoustics, speaker setup, and balancing, reading them was an everyday part of my life.

I have three two way mini monitor system that do not have this kind of response deviation between 200-1khz. Your explaination of a 5db peak at 200hz, and a 4db dip 1khz represents a frequency response of +-9db between 200-1khz. That quite frankly is a horrible measurement by any sane person's standard. Two of my mini monitor systems(the same speakers in different rooms) over that same range have a .5db deviation, and the other is 1.5db deviation. This is an in room measurement without the benefit of EQ.

This speaker based on those measurements is going to have a rich, overly ripe mid bass character, and with a recess of 4db at 1khz, and a recovered response at 4k will cause instruments whose fundamentals lie in those frequencies to pop in out of the mix randomly. Having a 4db deviance in the critical 1-4khz area is just poor speaker voicing, I don't care who designed the speaker.

The problem for you is that the speaker is plus 4.5db at 200hz when JA claims that that is at least 2db too high - cut that down to 3-3.5db. He also notes that the off axis response which is cleaner and the way the speaker is supposed to be audition provides a boost in the 1khz region. That 9db differential is closer to a 3db differential and alternate measurements show it - Stereophile's does not but then they didn't measure the speaker where it is suppsoed to be measured. A 2.5db - 3.5db differential is hardly anything to write home about.

Personally I would rather you discuss the measurement techniques with the manufacturer and get their measurements when the speaker is positioned correctly and toed in correctly and then see the results. A corner loaded speaker that takes the corner and the floor distance into account and is meant to be at a specific height to be then measured indipendandtly in the middle of a room on a stand that was over a foot higher than it's supposed to be on axis (when it is supposed to be toed in dramatically) seems incomprehensible to me.

Ask the question on AA as Peter posts there a fair bit. http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=speakers&n=260343&highlight=Quad+measurement&r=

RGA
07-27-2010, 12:03 PM
This speaker is essentially flat below 300Hz, the 2.5dB boost at 100Hz in the graph is a measurement artifact.

Yes and he noted that for the AN E as well and I am happy that you also noted this. Unfortunately that also means that ear will further locate the treble band in the graph I posted - the ear will not the stronger band and in the second graph without much bass midbass or upper bass and with prominant rises in the mid and upper treble the ear will be drawn to that and it will generate fatigue. Speakers that have a general rising altitude in db as frequency rises are bright leaning loudspeakers that generally cause fatigue IME. I have no problem if people say the AN E has a lifted presence band - it does and it sounds like it.

Art Dudley notes that it is "stronger in the left hand on piano" and that's fair criticism because it does - the body of the piano sounds richer fuller and has a bigger bodied sound than the speaker graph I posted that comparatively doesn't sound full bodied or like a real piano is sitting in the room. Hi-Fi Choice noted the presence band being 2db higher and thus it would clearly have a slight 2-3db lift in the left hand of piano or other bass instruments. Nothing is perfect but I want the speaker to sound more like a piano is in the room and compared directly against a Piano in the same room the AN E sounds more like it than does the speaker with the graph I posted. Art felt the same way, as did Wes Philips as did Peter Van Willenswaard all from Stereophile. I think we would both at least agree that speaker designer elected to go with his ear over the textbook measurements (whether one views that as a good or bad thing will depend on the subjective response of the listener and I respect that some won't want that).

I don't have a problem with a speaker that has a slight emphasis in the presence band - I prefer it to a presence in the treble band. It offers a fuller bodied sound - similar I would suggest to the Harbeth and Tannoy prestige schools. Although I find the Harbeth to sound a little "thicker" or warmer in nature they were fine speakers at CES that were quite easy to listen to without sounding thin and gritty.

I would also suggest that as a result of a speaker that has a slight presence band lift and that is not tripped up on the treble will perform better in low level listening sessions without the need to be played "louder" to get the sense of bass response. For late night apartment owners this can be a God send. Moreover, it works at the other end of the volume spectrum - at louder listening levels the the treble will not overpower the senses. Looking at the way the ear gels with the Munson effect you will have an easier time of it at loud levels - can listen far longer (whcih could be dangerous) but nevertheless it won't be abnoxious. The AN E can play without compression to quite stupid levels with a big helping of bass response without sounding shrill. All of this may not be positives in the "accuracy" debate but they are certainly positives in the end user listening esperience camp.

Granted I know you disagree on this next point but what I found enitirely frustrating with the B&W 705 with an all bryston front end in a smallish room was that I had to keep turning the volume up to get a sense of midbass drive and "room filling" presence. I did not get the volume up that high and the bass became steadily lesser and lesser as if the louder I put it the 'thinner" it got. I find this true of "every" single standmount on the market that I have heard of similar size and shape and driver size compliment. At low volume there is very little bass or midbass. It's disastrous on music like Lady Gaga. Take a song like Bad Romance - it should have a BIG badass bass drive and room filling scale. You should be able to CRANK that sucker up and get hit you in the chest bass speed and articulation. What you get is a completely anaemic presentation compared to the AN E of Harbeth 40.1. I tried a couple of subs that added the presence in the lower bass but not in the mid upper bass and the treble is still tripped up.

That big bold sound on music like pop/trance/rap/metal/rock can't be ignored because the speaker happens to have a 2db "further dip" in the band that is playing a violin. The graph of the speaker I posted has a 2db less dip at 1khz). To me the trade-off is just not one worth making. And I bet most people who listen to the AN E will not make the trade-off either - which explains why despite the foibles the other stuff it brings to the table is more desirable - and why guys like Wes Philips who loves those 6 inch wooferx slimmer than wider and "better measuring" speakers was brought to tears by the AN E. Despite what people like to think, the presence band tends to push the emotional buttons regardless of the music playing - that bass richness has something to it. The ear will adjust to frequency anomolies within a few minutes.

RGA
07-27-2010, 01:05 PM
Sir T. To go along with the measurements look at the two AN E results. The black graph is the mid room on stands far too high. You see what I see a pretty flat response from 300hz to 1khz and then the nosedive from 1khz to 1.1khz, but as you can see in the in room off axis response how it would normally be positioned (though Art still doesn't have them hard in corners or towed in enough IMO, the blue curve has now flattened out significantly - the nosedive that looked like 6db in the first graph is now about 1db from 1khz to 1.1khz - the step down from that point on is also far smoother. There is a dip higher up at 1.6khz which is about +2.5db and then dips to -2db at 2.3khz but this is a much slower and steadier drop off than the first graph. I suspect there are some in room issues because the same thing is happening to Harbeths in the same region.

Audio Note's crossover is located above 2khz (2.3khz) and seems about right here. The behaviour below 300hz seems room related again because both speakers are showing similar anomolies in the 100hz-200hz region - I would like to see some different speakers in the same room because the first graphs actually shows the AN E has a rise between 100hz and 300hz. In Art's room it shows a significant dip in that region. It can't be both. Clearly the measurements are illustrating some room related issues but I can't be sure because the initial black graph measurement was not tested in a corner position the way it should have been so the baseline is corrupt. Art's room would convince me more if the Harbeth wasn't showing such similar results in numerous parts of the band and very dissimilar results to the black graph version.

RGA
07-27-2010, 01:50 PM
I think I raise a valid point. On the black graph the speaker shows a rise in the 100hz - 300hz region and in Art's room it looks like a suckout in the same band. The 800hz-2khz region looks a lot better in Art's room than the initial on axis response.

And maggies measure terrible - no evidence from anyone here has remotely said otherwise except for a lame exuces that diploles are tough to measure.

I'd be happy to pit the AN E against the 3.6 in a blind level matched sessions with say 20-30 trained jazz/classical musicians. Or any Toole inspired standmount. Are you game. It would be a preference based test. Two identical rooms, stereos are black lit out, same music level matched. Each listner listens to both rooms - each has a card and places the card for the room they liked best in a box. I would be willing to stack the deck in your favour - any SS front end at any price. I get an OTO and a one box cd player. You get to use treatments and an EQ if you wish. Say a few days to get it all organized. I get no treatments, no EQ, and no more than 3 hours to set-up. I would bet that no less than 80% of listeners choose the AN room. Might be fun. I have all of August and you can choose whichever hotel room is in this area. All that I require is corners.

Edit: Not sure the music program is going in August. I'll have to check. Might have to conduct the test at the university. I can check into it if you wish. Have had the idea for such preference testing for awhile but the logistics need to be worked out. I can probably borrow most of the gear so that should not be an issue - so no need to transport 3.6 speakers around. Soundhounds has done blind tests as well but I would rather impartial locality

jpaik
07-27-2010, 01:54 PM
This is an interesting thread for many reasons, not the least of which is one contributor's constant dragging of Audio Note into almost every post. Tedious to be sure. I'm wondering if the OP has lost interest, or is he satisified with the responses?

E-Stat
07-27-2010, 02:32 PM
I am very familiar with how dipoles measure.
That covers a very wide territory.


Personally, I don't like the artificial spaciousness of in room reflections coming from my front speakers, which is why I usually choose speakers with more controlled directivity.
Some dipoles do exhibit rather controlled directivity. That is more a function of the driver(s) used.

rw

E-Stat
07-27-2010, 02:37 PM
Who can tell what kind of interaction with a high output impedance tube amp will be. You might have +/-10dB or more!!
A bunch with that Scream Machine profile.

rw

Mr Peabody
07-27-2010, 02:42 PM
Boy, some one says Ralph and look who comes out of the wood work :)

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-27-2010, 02:54 PM
That covers a very wide territory.

I probably should have said "I am familar with how to measure a dipole speaker. How's that?



Some dipoles do exhibit rather controlled directivity. That is more a function of the driver(s) used.

rw

When I mentioned controlled directivity, I am referring to speakers that do not engage with the room in the mid and higher frequencies. A dipole uses the room to create an artifical sense of spaciousness via its rearward output. A more controlled directivity only distributes its mids and highs forward of the front baffle, and has no rearward contribution within that frequency range.

E-Stat
07-27-2010, 03:04 PM
When I mentioned controlled directivity, I am referring to speakers that do not engage with the room in the mid and higher frequencies. A dipole uses the room to create an artifical sense of spaciousness via its rearward output.
That's where different speaker designs and room treatments come into play. Indeed, uncontrolled indirect sound can ruin the image. Can you say Bose 901? Here again there is a wide range of speaker types and placements which provide different results.


A more controlled directivity only distributes its mids and highs forward of the front baffle, and has no rearward contribution within that frequency range.
As for me, I'd rather not have a baffle at all. :)

rw

Geoffcin
07-27-2010, 03:15 PM
. A dipole uses the room to create an artifical sense of spaciousness via its rearward output.

With almost all live music your hearing mostly reflected sound, while with most home audio reproduction the sound is mostly direct. Of course good recordings have the delayed component carefully preserved, but when it's presented in direct way THAT is an artificial sense of spaciousness.

I will agree that a HT using dipoles for the main speakers is difficult at best to get correct. I gave up after several years of trying and now use my maggies in a stereo only setup. With that being said I recently heard a top-of-the-line Definitive Technology setup with their large Bipolar mains and it was quite extraordinary. Easily besting the best cinema I've ever been in for shear large scale presentation.

Pat D
07-27-2010, 04:08 PM
Can someone who knows more about the graphs tell me more about my main speakers?

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/psb_platinum_t6/


I understand most of this, but not all of it and really didn't do much research into the graphs when I bought them, I demoed dozens of speakers before I bought these and they were the first speaker in my budget at the time that disappeared and allowed me to fall in love with all the music I heard through them.

I have yet to find a speaker in their price range or nearly twice their price that is comparable to me, but everyone has different taste.

There are a couple of people here that are much more qualified than I am to interpret speaker measurements. However, I have looked at various versions of NRC measurements published in magazines for over 30 years and think I have learned something from them.

I think the first one to look at is Chart 2, the Listening Window response. You will notice that it is almost astonishingly flat for a speaker. This gives a good idea of how good the speaker can sound if well set up. It has a slight downward slope, which means that though the highs are there, the speaker probably will not sound bright.

One may compare with the Paradigm Signature S8. It shows a very flat Listening Window response where it counts most with a slight downward slope, too.

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/paradigm_signature_s8/

Since RGA hates my Signature S2 speakers, let's take a glance at its NRC measurements, too. The are quite even, too, though they have some small variations. The chief anomaly in the Listening Window curve is the very narrow dip about 800 Hz, which shows up in all the curves. It has little audible significance, although John Atkinson thinks he heard a minor effect on some note on the clarinet and on test tones.

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/paradigm_signature_s2/

You may want to look at How We Test Speakers, which is linked from every set of speaker measurements Soundstage publishes:

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/test_loudspeakers.htm

Chart 1 shows the horizontal dispersion, which is very good. The top curves for the T6 track each other very closely all the way to 20 kHz. They show a very slight rise between 1.5 and 3 kHz or so, which probably makes them sound slightly more forward than the Paradigm Signature, but still very neutral. Also, with good curves that track each other closely, one would expect that the speaker would not call attention to itself.

The bottom curves track each other quite closely, too. The measurements also give some idea as to the useful bass response in a normal room in a house. The bass is down about 10 dB around 30 Hz. Paradigm gives a DIN specification for LF extension but PSB just gives the -10 dB point, which has accords with my own experience.

It looks like the T6 would image very well. All in all, the measurements are very, very good. I heard the larger T8 and think I could easily live with them.

The best explanation for the layperson I know as to how the dispersion will affect the performance in a normal room is found in an interview John Atkinson of Stereophile did with Paul Barton in 1997:

http://stereophile.com/interviews/231/

The distortion curves indicate it will play quite loudly without distress. The impedance curve indicates that it should be used with an amplifier that will handle 4 ohm loads, but other than that, it does not look like a difficult load.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-27-2010, 04:33 PM
With almost all live music your hearing mostly reflected sound, while with most home audio reproduction the sound is mostly direct. Of course good recordings have the delayed component carefully preserved, but when it's presented in direct way THAT is an artificial sense of spaciousness.

Wrong! When I track a live recording session, I hear the instruments, and some of the reflections that are captured by the microphones that represent the recording location. If you play that same recording session back on a dipole, you hear not only the recording, but you hear a great deal of the rooms acoustics contributing as well - of which none of that was apart of the original recording. Speakers that do not interact with the walls as much as a dipole does will preserve more of the original capture than a dipole will. Holmann Tomlinson proved this back in 1990 when I was still in college(and in his class), and that was the basis for the THX speaker certification. Using several listeners with high quality Stax headphones as the reference, he tested two speakers with various music and soundtracks. One speaker was exactly one half of the other speaker. In other words, the first speaker was a two driver two way, the other speaker was a four driver two way. If you stacked two of the first speaker - one with the tweeter on top, and the other with the tweeter on the bottom (on top of the first), it would be an exact replica the second speaker. 26 of us students took the test, and when it came to preserving the original ambience of the recording, the second speaker won easily. All 26 of us could tell the first speaker from the second speaker even when they were both hidden from sight behind a acoustically transparent curtain. This was because the second speaker sounded more like the headphones than the first one did.


I will agree that a HT using dipoles for the main speakers is difficult at best to get correct. I gave up after several years of trying and now use my maggies in a stereo only setup. With that being said I recently heard a top-of-the-line Definitive Technology setup with their large Bipolar mains and it was quite extraordinary. Easily besting the best cinema I've ever been in for shear large scale presentation.

It is not difficult for a home speaker to sound better than a cinema speaker, there goals are quite different from each other. Unfortunately the DT bipolar speakers are far from accurate in reproducing a soundtrack. At no point in the creation of a soundtrack are bipolar speakers used - as it would give the exact opposite of what the cinema requires; total directivity in a pretty much reflection free zone in the front, and a wide diffused rear. In HT, bipolar speaker belong in the rear, not the front. Bipolar speakers also engage a rooms modes and nodes much more efficiently than a front radiating speaker. Any speaker that interacts with the side and front walls with the efficiency of a bipolar speaker, will reproduce more of the room than the actual ambience in the recording.

Geoffcin
07-27-2010, 05:04 PM
Wrong! When I track a live recording session, I hear the instruments, and some of the reflections that are captured by the microphones that represent the recording location. If you play that same recording session back on a dipole, you hear not only the recording, but you hear a great deal of the rooms acoustics contributing as well -

I meant attending a concert where, depending on where you are seated, a good portion of the sound you hear will be from reflected sound. Dipoles are remarkable in recreating that "illusion" as you would call it.

E-Stat
07-27-2010, 05:25 PM
Using several listeners with high quality Stax headphones as the reference, he tested two speakers with various music and soundtracks. One speaker was exactly one half of the other speaker. In other words, the first speaker was a two driver two way, the other speaker was a four driver two way. If you stacked two of the first speaker - one with the tweeter on top, and the other with the tweeter on the bottom (on top of the first), it would be an exact replica the second speaker. 26 of us students took the test, and when it came to preserving the original ambience of the recording, the second speaker won easily.
Sorry, but I'm not understanding the gist of your comments. You are contrasting monopoles with dipoles and describe a comparison using a configuration that I use in the garage: double (inverted) Advents? I'm missing something.

http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/advents.jpg


Any speaker that interacts with the side and front walls with the efficiency of a bipolar speaker, will reproduce more of the room than the actual ambience in the recording.
The degree to which dipoles interact with the side walls vary greatly, based upon the driver design and the room treatments employed. When you speak of conventional cones 'n domes dipoles, then you are using wide dispersion (and high interaction) drivers. Quite a few planar designs, on the other hand, inherently exhibit more directivity with less room interaction.

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-27-2010, 05:48 PM
I meant attending a concert where, depending on where you are seated, a good portion of the sound you hear will be from reflected sound. Dipoles are remarkable in recreating that "illusion" as you would call it.

It is an illusion, but it is an illusion that has too much of your room acoustic in it. A better "illusion" would be a speaker that reproduces exactly what was fed into the microphone, with far fewer speaker generated reflections in the room. A live concert does not have our four walls dominating what we hear.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-27-2010, 06:09 PM
Sorry, but I'm not understanding the gist of your comments. You are contrasting monopoles with dipoles and describe a comparison using a configuration that I use in the garage: double (inverted) Advents? I'm missing something.

http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/advents.jpg

I am contrasting the difference between a speaker that strongly interacts with your rooms acoustics - much like a dipole would, and a speaker that does it far less. Your setup is exactly what I am talking about when I describe the speaker the test used, except the double stacked speaker were all in one cabinet with the drivers more closely situated(and aligned), not two as in your setup. The drivers and crossover were identical in each speaker.



The degree to which dipoles interact with the side walls vary greatly, based upon the driver design and the room treatments employed. When you speak of conventional cones 'n domes dipoles, then you are using wide dispersion (and high interaction) drivers.

I think we were talking about ribbons and electrostatics. While a true cone and dome dipole has it drivers facing facing 180 degrees from one another, most cones and domes that are dipoles(and are used for surrounds) use 45 degree angle facings. The dispersion pattern between these two types of dipoles are quite different. A cone and dome dipole at 180 degree facings will behave much like a ribbon or electrostatic speaker when comes to dispersion. Both will exhibit a figure eight dispersion pattern with fairly broad notches on each side of the speaker. A dipole with the drivers facing at 45 degree angles with have more of a bent figure eight pattern, with a notch that is much smaller than a 180 degree dipole.

Dipoles may have a spatial notches to their sides, but their rearward reflections creates reflections that strongly interact with the side walls in spite of that. This can't help but be so, because the majority of a dipoles reflections are created in the horizontal plane. The sound hits the walls and scatters, and if you use room treatments to correct this, you change the frequency response(and the off axis power response) the designer was trying to achieve. If you place the treatments on the side walls in front of the speaker, that still won't change the complex reflection pattern happening in back of the speaker as signals reflect off the front wall and scatter around the room.


Quite a few planar designs, on the other hand, inherently exhibit more directivity with less room interaction.

rw

If the planar speaker is an open back design, then it will still interact with the rooms acoustics much more efficiently than a planar mid or tweeter housed in a cabinet. If the speaker does not have a cabinet, then it is radiating its output in a figure eight pattern which still creates strong reflections to the rear of the speaker, which spill over to the sides of the speaker as well.

Geoffcin
07-27-2010, 06:15 PM
It is an illusion, but it is an illusion that has too much of your room acoustic in it. A better "illusion" would be a speaker that reproduces exactly what was fed into the microphone, with far fewer speaker generated reflections in the room. A live concert does not have our four walls dominating what we hear.

Luckily I'm really happy with the acoustics of all my rooms. I also use dipoles for the surround speakers in the HT room.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-27-2010, 06:50 PM
Luckily I'm really happy with the acoustics of all my rooms. I also use dipoles for the surround speakers in the HT room.

Well damn, if you are happy, then I am happy!! That is what this is all about right?

After following this thread, it is nice to know that I am not the only one that knows how to keep up a spicy debate. I guess I am not so terrible after all..........well maybe a little :devil: Great discussion, and lots of good information!

Feanor
07-27-2010, 07:17 PM
...

If the planar speaker is an open back design, then it will still interact with the rooms acoustics much more efficiently than a planar mid or tweeter housed in a cabinet. If the speaker does not have a cabinet, then it is radiating its output in a figure eight pattern which still creates strong reflections to the rear of the speaker, which spill over to the sides of the speaker as well.
I use Magneplanars in my stereo setup and love love them, but I acknowledge that spacious sound of the planar is an artifact, not truly accurate reproduction. (This reminds me of the sense of depth from tube equipment which I also strongly suspect is an artifact.)

The likely superior resolution of electrostatics and ribbons is separate matter and not what I'm talking about here when I mention accuracy.

I think planars are nice for stereo but in a multi-channel set up I've been convinced for quite a while that you will get much more accuracy, i.e. much more fidelity to the recording engineer's intent, using a set of directionally-controlled speakers that interact minimally with the room. I'm gratified to hear my opinion reinforced by an expert like Sir TtT.

E-Stat
07-27-2010, 07:43 PM
Your setup is exactly what I am talking about when I describe the speaker the test used, except the double stacked speaker were all in one cabinet with the drivers more closely situated(and aligned), not two as in your setup. The drivers and crossover were identical in each speaker.
And that is your *proof* that ALL dipoles react more with the room than ALL monopoles? Whatever. Double Advents use identical drivers and crossovers, too.


If the planar speaker is an open back design, then it will still interact with the rooms acoustics much more efficiently than a planar mid or tweeter housed in a cabinet.
Based upon exactly what? Certainly not the measured polar response of the speaker! There is precious little radiation to the sides with directional electrostats, not to mention zero need for driver blending - you know that single pebble in the pond effect you've talked about.. The rear wave can effectively be controlled with both distance and room treatments. Stick to your 45 degree example. Speaker designer and crossover wizard Sigfried Linkwitz has a different point of view when the topic is reproducing music. Dipole behavior (http://www.linkwitzlab.com/rooms.htm)

The directional response of the ideal dipole is obtained with open baffle speakers at low frequencies. Note, that to obtain the same on-axis sound pressure level as from a monopole, a dipole needs to radiate only 1/3rd of the monopole's power into the room. This means 4.8 dB less contribution of the room's acoustic signature to the perceived sound. It might also mean 4.8 dB less sound for your neighbor, or that much more sound to you. Despite this advantage dipole speakers are often not acceptable, because they tend to be constructed as physically large panels that interfere with room aesthetics, and they seem to suffer from insufficient bass output, critical room placement and a narrow "sweet spot".

I would agree that HT systems with their carefully "steered" image probably work best with boxes.

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-28-2010, 09:14 AM
And that is your *proof* that ALL dipoles react more with the room than ALL monopoles? Whatever. Double Advents use identical drivers and crossovers, too.

Double advents are two independent speaker boxes stack on each other. The speaker I was talking about is one single speaker



Based upon exactly what? Certainly not the measured polar response of the speaker! There is precious little radiation to the sides with directional electrostats, not to mention zero need for driver blending.. The rear wave can effectively be controlled with both distance and room treatments. Stick to your 45 degree example. Speaker designer and crossover wizard Sigfried Linkwitz has a different point of view when the topic is reproducing music. Dipole behavior (http://www.linkwitzlab.com/rooms.htm)



The directional response of the ideal dipole is obtained with open baffle speakers at low frequencies. Note, that to obtain the same on-axis sound pressure level as from a monopole, a dipole needs to radiate only 1/3rd of the monopole's power into the room. This means 4.8 dB less contribution of the room's acoustic signature to the perceived sound. It might also mean 4.8 dB less sound for your neighbor, or that much more sound to you. Despite this advantage dipole speakers are often not acceptable, because they tend to be constructed as physically large panels that interfere with room aesthetics, and they seem to suffer from insufficient bass output, critical room placement and a narrow "sweet spot".

I would agree that HT systems with their carefully "steered" image probably work best with boxes.

rw

If a speaker suffers from insufficient bass output, has a critical room placement and narrow sweet spot, that is enough right there for me to fully discount this speaker no matter what other advantages it bring to the table.

I have never heard of a HT system with a "steered" image, can you give me an example of one?

Geoffcin
07-28-2010, 09:37 AM
I have never heard of a HT system with a "steered" image, can you give me an example of one?

One Steered image coming up!


http://www.texaslonghorn.com/watusi/steer_m.jpg

E-Stat
07-28-2010, 09:57 AM
Double advents are two independent speaker boxes stack on each other. The speaker I was talking about is one single speaker.
Both use a doubled amount of identical drivers and crossovers in exactly the array you described. What speaker system having two tweeters and two woofers did you audition?


If a speaker suffers from insufficient bass output, has a critical room placement and narrow sweet spot, that is enough right there for me to fully discount this speaker no matter what other advantages it bring to the table.
What does this have to do with your assertion of the alleged lower room interaction with monopoles? Especially when your *proof* has nothing to do with dipoles.


I have never heard of a HT system with a "steered" image, can you give me an example of one?
There are many such examples. There is a great scene in Avatar where Jake is being instructed on the use of the bow and arrow by Neytiri. The characters are framed in the back right corner and when the arrow flies, you hear it travel from its origin at front right diagonally past the back left. For home theatre, sounds captured and so steered make for a more realistic presentation. Isn't that the whole point of that zillion speaker system you mentioned a while back? You can pan an image anywhere left to right and front to back where you want to steer it. I've never experienced that phenomenon, however, at a live concert of acoustic music. All the musicians and their instruments remain on the stage.

You optimize for movies, I for the vast majority of musical recordings. To each his own.

rw

Geoffcin
07-28-2010, 10:09 AM
There are many such examples. There is a great scene in Avatar where Jake is being instructed on the use of the bow and arrow by Neytiri. The characters are framed in the back right corner and when the arrow flies, you hear it travel from its origin at front right diagonally past the back left. For home theatre, sounds captured and so steered make for a more realistic presentation. I've never experienced that phenomenon, however, at a live concert of acoustic music. All the musicians and their instruments remain on the stage.

You optimize for movies, I for the vast majority of musical recordings. To each his own.

rw

Yeah, but wouldn't it be kewl if the pianist could shoot across the room while the strings circled your head counter clockwise? How realistic would that be? Oh wait, that IS what 5.1 audio is all about!

E-Stat
07-28-2010, 10:32 AM
Yeah, but wouldn't it be kewl if the pianist could shoot across the room while the strings circled your head counter clockwise? How realistic would that be? Oh wait, that IS what 5.1 audio is all about!
:^)

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-28-2010, 11:55 AM
Both use a doubled amount of identical drivers and crossovers in exactly the array you described. What speaker system having two tweeters and two woofers did you audition?

It used to be made by M&K, but is no longer manufactured. It was a THX model with dual woofers and two stacked tweeters sandwiched between them. It has only one crossover, not two separate ones



What does this have to do with your assertion of the alleged lower room interaction with monopoles? Especially when your *proof* has nothing to do with dipoles.

I'll say it this way since the link disputes my claims. Even if a dipole interacts less with a room than a monopole, If the speaker suffers from insufficient bass output, has a critical room placement and narrow sweet spot, that is enough right there for me to fully discount this speaker no matter what other advantages it bring to the table. How about that correction.

In saying this, I am somewhat puzzled that anyone can claim that dipole interacts with a room less than a monopole when 50% of the speakers output comes out the back of the panel over its entire operating range, and is reflected off the front wall, and a monopole only has that issue at low frequencies and no where else. This is counterintuitive to me, as the very purpose of THX using dipoles in the rear is for its diffusive effects which are driven by reflections generated off the rear, front and side walls. I can completely understand a constricted vertical pattern from these speakers, and I do understand the notches at the sides, but the rear reflections towards the front walls are far more than a typical monopole speakers produce.




There are many such examples. There is a great scene in Avatar where Jake is being instructed on the use of the bow and arrow by Neytiri. The characters are framed in the back right corner and when the arrow flies, you hear it travel from its origin at front right diagonally past the back left. For home theatre, sounds captured and so steered make for a more realistic presentation. Isn't that the whole point of that zillion speaker system you mentioned a while back? You can pan an image anywhere left to right and front to back where you want to steer it. I've never experienced that phenomenon, however, at a live concert of acoustic music. All the musicians and their instruments remain on the stage.

This is not a function of a HT system, this is a function of the mix itself. Once again to you, comparing a soundtrack mix to a live event is just plain silly. They are totally different things with totally different functions. Apples and oranges comparison at best.


You optimize for movies, I for the vast majority of musical recordings. To each his own.

rw

I am optimized for both thanks.

E-Stat
07-28-2010, 12:08 PM
It used to be made by M&K, but is no longer manufactured. It was a THX model with dual woofers and two stacked tweeters sandwiched between them. It has only one crossover, not two separate ones.
Ah. It would use one capacitor and inductor instead of two. THX certifies mediocre computer speakers. Does this have any relevance to the conversation?


I'll say it this way since the link disputes my claims. Even if a dipole interacts less with a room than a monopole, If the speaker suffers from insufficient bass output, has a critical room placement and narrow sweet spot, that is enough right there for me to fully discount this speaker no matter what other advantages it bring to the table. How about that correction.
I see. Your commentary has nothing at all to do with dipolar speakers. You don't like planars.


In saying this, I am somewhat puzzled that anyone can claim that dipole interacts with a room less than a monopole when 50% of the speakers output comes out the back of the panel over its entire operating range, and is reflected off the front wall, and a monopole only has that issue at low frequencies and no where else.
Speculate as you will. I follow empirical results confirmed by listening experience.


This is counterintuitive to me, as the very purpose of THX using dipoles in the rear is for its diffusive effects which are driven by reflections generated off the rear, front and side walls.
Such is true using the typical monkey-coffin 45 degree models which have little in common with high resolution dipolars. Do you really not understand the difference?


I can completely understand a constricted vertical pattern from these speakers, and I do understand the notches at the sides, but the rear reflections towards the front walls are far more than a typical monopole speakers produce.
Sorry if you don't understand the Linkwitz data.


This is not a function of a HT system, this is a function of the mix itself. A soundtrack mix has nothing in common with a live experience does it? Panning can occur with just two speakers right?
You asked for a definition of steering and were provided with such.



I am optimized for both thanks.
Certainly not by the standards of many, but I'm glad you're happy with your selections.

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-28-2010, 12:19 PM
Okay, I just got the answer I needed to understand the link assertions. It says this:

The directional response of the ideal dipole is obtained with open baffle speakers at low frequencies. Note, that to obtain the same on-axis sound pressure level as from a monopole, a dipole needs to radiate only 1/3rd of the monopole's power into the room. This means 4.8 dB less contribution of the room's acoustic signature to the perceived sound. It might also mean 4.8 dB less sound for your neighbor, or that much more sound to you.

This statement relates only to low frequencies, not the mids or highs. This is quantified by the words "at low frequencies". At all other frequencies other than the low frequencies a dipole interacts more with the rooms acoustics than a monopole does. By the very nature of a dipole(radiating 50% of its output towards the listener, and 50% rearward towards the front wall over its entire operating range) this is logically so. A monopole only radiates omni directionally at low frequencies, but it is very directional at the mid and high frequencies, so by its very nature it would create fewer room born reflections than a speaker that radiates 50% of its output towards the front wall at all frequencies. .

E-Stat
07-28-2010, 12:37 PM
This statement relates only to low frequencies, not the mids or highs. This is quantified by the words "at low frequencies". At all other frequencies other than the low frequencies a dipole interacts more with the rooms acoustics than a monopole does.
You continue to lump a wide range of designs using completely different drivers into one case. Do you really not understand the difference?


By the very nature of a dipole(radiating 50% of its output towards the listener, and 50% rearward towards the front wall over its entire operating range) this is logically so.
Really. We're talking about side walls, remember? Apparently, you are unaware of room treatments and placement which affect the rear radiation. Makes perfect sense from a box guy.


A monopole only radiates omni directionally at low frequencies, but it is very directional at the mid and high frequencies, so by its very nature it would create fewer room born reflections than a speaker that radiates 50% of its output towards the front wall at all frequencies. .
You cannot be serious with this comment. Do you really think that the directivity of all driver designs mimics that of cone/dome drivers? It's fine by me that you prefer the sound of a box. Also taken from Linkwitz' text is the following:

The typical box speaker, whether vented, band-passed or closed, is omni-directional at low frequencies and becomes increasingly forward-directional towards higher frequencies. Even when flat on-axis, the total acoustic power radiated into the room drops typically 10 dB (10x) or more between low and high frequencies. The uneven power response and the associated strong excitation of low frequency room modes contributes to the familiar (and often desired :-( ) generic box loudspeaker sound. This cannot be the avenue to sound reproduction that is true to the original.

I, for one do not prefer the sound of the "familiar and often desired generic box loudspeaker sound".

This demands a large radiating surface area, because achievable excursions are usually small for electrostatic or magnetic panel drive. The obtained volume displacement limits the maximum bass output. Non-linear distortion, though, is often much lower than for dynamic drivers. Large radiating area means that the panel becomes multi-directional with increasing frequency which contributes to critical room placement and listening
position.

And more lifelike musical reproduction to these ears. Take your choices (and be honest about them)!

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-28-2010, 12:37 PM
Ah. It would use one capacitor and inductor instead of two. THX certifies mediocre computer speakers. Does this have any relevance to the conversation?

THX certifies many types of speakers, not just computer speakers. A little context would be helpful.



I see. Your commentary has nothing at all to do with dipolar speakers. You don't like planars.

If they have the issues that were outlined in the link, you are right.



Speculate as you will. I follow empirical results confirmed by listening experience.

Your empirical results need context that you didn't include or missed.



Such is true using the typical monkey-coffin 45 degree models which have little in common with high resolution dipolars. Do you really not understand the difference?

The first THX dipoles were 180 degree designs not monkey coffin 45 degree models.



Sorry if you don't understand the Linkwitz data.

Oh I understand it perfectly now. The link defines a specific set of frequencies when it makes its claims, and that would be the bass frequencies, not the mids or the highs. This little tibit confirms exactly what I have stated.

Large radiating area means that the panel becomes multi-directional with increasing frequency which contributes to critical room placement and listening position.

A multi directional speaker WILL interact with the room acoustics more than mono directional speaker. That is a fact that cannot be disputed.



You asked for a definition of steering and were provided with such.

This not what I asked you. I asked you to show me a HT system with a "steered" image, can you give me an example of one? Panning in a soundtrack has no relationship to a HT system. So what you provided me with was a BS answer.




Certainly not by the standards of many, but I'm glad you're happy with your selections.

rw

I do not buy my equipment to serve the many, and the many does not buy my equipment.

If I used your standards to do what I wanted to do, it would only be half done at best.

E-Stat
07-28-2010, 12:51 PM
THX certifies many types of speakers, not just computer speakers. A little context would be helpful.
THX certifies many mediocre speakers. Such can be found for $100 here. (http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=thx+computer+speakers&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=8079947046000779300&ei=hrJQTO_uCsiNnQfQntyPBw&sa=X&oi=product_catalog_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQ8wIwAA#)Is there some relevance to your comment?


If they have the issues that were outlined in the link, you are right.
By all means, argue that with Siggy's measurements.


Your empirical results need context that you didn't include or missed.
The link clearly talks about accurate musical reproduction, not home theatre tricks.


The first THX dipoles were 180 degree designs not monkey coffin 45 degree models.
So, since your commentary was for rear placement, how exactly would you place a true dipole in the back of the room? Obviously, it would not be on the back wall as THX placement dictates.


Oh I understand it perfectly now. The link defines a specific set of frequencies when it makes its claims, and that would be the bass frequencies, not the mids or the highs. This little tibit confirms exactly what I have stated.
I guess that explains why Linkwitz has produced only dipolar speakers for the past decade.


A multi directional speaker WILL interact with the room acoustics more than mono directional speaker. That is a fact that cannot be disputed.
Here again, you argue generics and fail to acknowledge the variance with dipolar speakers.


This not what I asked you. I asked you to show me a HT system with a "steered" image, can you give me an example of one? Panning in a soundtrack has no relationship to a HT system. So what you provided me with was a BS answer.
Sorry if you don't understand the concept. I would have thought your experience with the Ionsono system would have illustrated the concept. Remember your comments?

"and is unique in that it is designed to work with 3D film(or video) to give the sound as much depth as the picture has. It can place sound in extremely specific places in the theater(and I mean any place), and can place a whisper right at your ear, or virtually 300ft away 360 degrees around the head, over the head, halfway down a side wall, slightly off screen, and anywhere in space...The thing that blew me away was I was able to track a ball of white noise from right in front of my head(I felt like I could grab it), around it, and it flew away over my shoulder behind my head to about what felt like a football field away. They did this with several different effects, with ambience playing out of the entire array. It felt like I was outdoors, all I needed was to feel the breeze. They played an orchestral piece, and one by one pulled out each instrument in its own space and highlighted it. It was spooky fantastic.
"


I do not buy my equipment to serve the many, and the many does not buy my equipment.
Nor do I. To each his own. Enjoy your HT. :)

rw

Jack in Wilmington
07-28-2010, 02:37 PM
Whew..........................That was better than the "Thrilla in Manilla" Thanks Guys.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-28-2010, 03:33 PM
THX certifies many mediocre speakers. Such can be found for $100 here. (http://www.google.com/products/catalog?q=thx+computer+speakers&oe=utf-8&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=8079947046000779300&ei=hrJQTO_uCsiNnQfQntyPBw&sa=X&oi=product_catalog_result&ct=result&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQ8wIwAA#)Is there some relevance to your comment?

You still are missing the mark, and I think you are doing it to be funny, for which you are not. If this is the breathe of knowledge you have concerning THX speakers, quit while you are ahead.



By all means, argue that with Siggy's measurements.

I don't argue with measurements, and I don't think anyone else does either. People argue with people.



The link clearly talks about accurate musical reproduction, not home theatre tricks.

I don't think this discussion is about home theater tricks, so I am not sure why you are bringing it up. Accurate musical reproduction can be achieved with many designs of speakers, not just one.



So, since your commentary was for rear placement, how exactly would you place a true dipole in the back of the room? Obviously, it would not be on the back wall as THX placement dictates.

You don't put THX dipoles in the back of the room, you put them to the sides of the room.



I guess that explains why Linkwitz has produced only dipolar speakers for the past decade.

That is his choice, and other speaker designers have made other choices. That does not make his choice the best, it is just another approach.



Here again, you argue generics and fail to acknowledge the variance with dipolar speakers.

The only variance occurs in four octaves, there is no variance when discussing the other six.



Sorry if you don't understand the concept. I would have thought your experience with the Ionsono system would have illustrated the concept. Remember your comments?

"and is unique in that it is designed to work with 3D film(or video) to give the sound as much depth as the picture has. It can place sound in extremely specific places in the theater(and I mean any place), and can place a whisper right at your ear, or virtually 300ft away 360 degrees around the head, over the head, halfway down a side wall, slightly off screen, and anywhere in space...The thing that blew me away was I was able to track a ball of white noise from right in front of my head(I felt like I could grab it), around it, and it flew away over my shoulder behind my head to about what felt like a football field away. They did this with several different effects, with ambience playing out of the entire array. It felt like I was outdoors, all I needed was to feel the breeze. They played an orchestral piece, and one by one pulled out each instrument in its own space and highlighted it. It was spooky fantastic.
"


Nor do I. To each his own. Enjoy your HT. :)

rw

This shows your poor understanding of anything related to soundtrack mixing. Wave synthesis has nothing to do with steering. Why don't you just admit that there is no such thing as "steering imaging" HT systems and get it over with.

I will enjoy my multichannel music as well as my HT. To each his own is correct.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-28-2010, 03:58 PM
You continue to lump a wide range of designs using completely different drivers into one case. Do you really not understand the difference?

A dipole is a dipole, no matter what drivers are used. Any speaker that radiates in a figure eight pattern is a dipole. Now you can slug your way through this with the same pile of BS you already have, but it does not change one thing

Definition of a dipole:

The term dipole derives from the fact that the polar response consists of two lobes, with equal radiation forwards and backwards, and none perpendicular to the axis. This can be useful in reducing the stimulation of resonant room modes at low frequencies. It also results in high frequencies being reflected from any rear wall, which can enhance the naturalness of the sound in typical listening rooms by creating more diffuse reverberation, though in theory it could detract from stereo localization.

This defintion stands regardless of the drivers that are used.



Really. We're talking about side walls, remember? Apparently, you are unaware of room treatments and placement which affect the rear radiation. Makes perfect sense from a box guy.

No, you were talking about the side walls, I was talking about the entire room. Once again if you deploy room treatments, the you mitigate the very thing that makes a dipole a dipole - and that is the spaciousness acheived by the rear wall reflections. So why bother? Don't assume what I know, and what I don't know. When it comes to making assumptions, you are the king of kings at it.



You cannot be serious with this comment. Do you really think that the directivity of all driver designs mimics that of cone/dome drivers? It's fine by me that you prefer the sound of a box. Also taken from Linkwitz' text is the following:

The typical box speaker, whether vented, band-passed or closed, is omni-directional at low frequencies and becomes increasingly forward-directional towards higher frequencies. Even when flat on-axis, the total acoustic power radiated into the room drops typically 10 dB (10x) or more between low and high frequencies. The uneven power response and the associated strong excitation of low frequency room modes contributes to the familiar (and often desired :-( ) generic box loudspeaker sound. This cannot be the avenue to sound reproduction that is true to the original.

This is HIS opinion, and I am sure the designers of box speakers have another one.

You are still stuck in the low frequencies, what about the mids and highs? Once again, at low frequencies dipoles may interact less with the room, but at mid and high frequencies, it interacts more and more. Nothing you have linked disputes this at all. This is also supported by this

It also results in high frequencies being reflected from any rear wall, which can enhance the naturalness of the sound in typical listening rooms by creating more diffuse reverberation, though in theory it could detract from stereo localization.

A diffused reverberation is caused by multiple complex reflections interacting with each other.


I, for one do not prefer the sound of the "familiar and often desired generic box loudspeaker sound".

Your preferences play a no role in what we are discussing here.


This demands a large radiating surface area, because achievable excursions are usually small for electrostatic or magnetic panel drive. The obtained volume displacement limits the maximum bass output. Non-linear distortion, though, is often much lower than for dynamic drivers. Large radiating area means that the panel becomes multi-directional with increasing frequency which contributes to critical room placement and listening
position.



And more lifelike musical reproduction to these ears. Take your choices (and be honest about them)!

rw[/QUOTE]

It would be more life like if it were recorded in your room. Since it wasn't, your room's sonic signature (which is profound at mid and high frequencies) is all over the recording - which is not exactly what I would call an accurate, or even life like.

You need to follow your own advice. You made your choices, now YOU be honest about them.

E-Stat
07-28-2010, 04:03 PM
You still are missing the mark, and I think you are doing it to be funny, for which you are not. If this is the breathe of knowledge you have concerning THX speakers, quit while you are ahead.
Do tell us the significance of wearing the "THX Certifiied" brand. Did they pay the appropriate fee?


I don't argue with measurements, and I don't think anyone else does either. People argue with people.
I understand completely. You were unable to maintain your original argument about monopoles vs. dipoles and changed mid-stream.



I don't think this discussion is about home theater tricks, so I am not sure why you are bringing it up. Accurate musical reproduction can be achieved with many designs of speakers, not just one.
I merely quote your reaction to the Ionsono system and the tricks with tracking white noise balls anywhere around your head. Geoff was right. ;)



You don't put THX dipoles in the back of the room, you put them to the sides of the room.
So which is it? Here is what you stated earlier regarding rear speakers:

"This is counterintuitive to me, as the very purpose of THX using dipoles in the rear is for its diffusive effects which are driven by reflections generated off the rear, front and side walls. "

Should I completely ignore your previous comments? Which represents your current line of thinking?



That is his choice, and other speaker designers have made other choices. That does not make his choice the best, it is just another approach.
Absolutely. That is exactly what I was thinking when you made your pretentious claim about the superiority of monopoles over all dipoles. Obviously, that is pure BS and I understand why you abandoned that reasoning and decided to attack my speakers instead of discussing the topic.


This shows your poor understanding of anything related to soundtrack mixing. Wave synthesis has nothing to do with steering. Why don't you just admit that there is no such thing as "steering imaging" HT systems and get it over with.
Because you guys continue to steer the image (as you described in copious detail) ! Do you understand the Avatar reference? Have you heard that effect before? What term do YOU use to call that image movement?

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-28-2010, 04:38 PM
Do tell us the significance of wearing the "THX Certifiied" brand. Did they pay the appropriate fee?

This is not relevant to the discussion at all, so I am not going to waste my time responding to this.



I understand completely. You were unable to maintain your original argument about monopoles vs. dipoles and changed mid-stream.

Likewise you posted a link that defined a point at certain frequencies, and tried to pass it off as applying to all frequencies.




I merely quote your reaction to the Ionsono system and the tricks with tracking white noise balls anywhere around your head. Geoff was right. ;)

What relevance does that have to what we are discussing here. Stop trying to muddy the waters with useless BS.




So which is it? Here is what you stated earlier regarding rear speakers:

"This is counterintuitive to me, as the very purpose of THX using dipoles in the rear is for its diffusive effects which are driven by reflections generated off the rear, front and side walls. "

Should I completely ignore your previous comments? Which represents your current line of thinking?

Am I supposed to take you seriously here? You understand of HT language sucks big time. In HT when someone speaks of rear speakers(or surrounds), we are not talking their actual location. THX mandates placing the surrounds(or rear speakers as stated on the back of most receivers) on the sides of the listening space with its dipole "null" facing the listening seat. With this placement, the speaker will not only interact with the side wall itself, but the rear and front wall as well.


Absolutely. That is exactly what I was thinking when you made your pretentious claim about the superiority of monopoles over all dipoles. Obviously, that is pure BS and I understand why you abandoned that reasoning and decided to attack my speakers instead of discussing the topic.

I think you need your eyes checked. I never mentioned anything about the superiority of one thing over another anywhere. I said plain and simple that monopoles interact with a room less than a dipole does. I still believe this, and have proven it as well. A dipole may interact less with the room at low frequencies, but at mid and high frequencies it strongly interacts with the room via its rear reflection. Do you dispute this? A monopole may interact with the room more at low frequencies, but less at mid and high frequencies. Do you dispute this?

I didn't say a damn thing about your speakers, I was speaking of the technology. You take $hit much too personal for my taste.



Because you guys continue to steer the image (as you described in copious detail) !

rw

Steering a signal has zero to do with a HT system. I could "place" and object anywhere in a sound field without using a panning mechanism. That my friend is not steering as steering requires a joystick to move images from one place to another. If I place a sound effect in the left speaker, and another effect in the right speaker a second later, that is not steering anything. So cut the dumb $hit and admit there is no such thing as a "steering imaging" when we are talking about HT system. What if the sound track was never played back in a HT system, panning and all? Is it now called "steering imaging" theater system?

What you call "steering" is actually called panning. Steering is what the logic circuits in a matrix do in the pro logic format.

Give me a frickin break....

E-Stat
07-28-2010, 05:15 PM
This is not relevant to the discussion at all, so I am not going to waste my time responding to this.
Fine. We'll ignore your earlier comments regarding THX compliance as they are irrelevant.


Likewise you posted a link that defined a point at certain frequencies, and tried to pass it off as applying to all frequencies.
You must have lingual problems with my posts. I quoted measurements and observations by Linkwitz. One might reasonably conclude, however, that the designer would evaluate the various pros and cons of the different designs. All of his designs are dipolar.


What relevance does that have to what we are discussing here. Stop trying to muddy the waters with useless BS.
I will follow your suggestion and consider all your previous comments as "useless BS".



Am I supposed to take you seriously here? You understand of HT language sucks big time. In HT when someone speaks of rear speakers(or surrounds), we are not talking their actual location. THX mandates placing the surrounds(or rear speakers as stated on the back of most receivers) on the sides of the listening space with its dipole "null" facing the listening seat. With this placement, the speaker will not only interact with the side wall itself, but the rear and front wall as well.
Take you seriously? Why would I do that when you have stated two different concepts in the space of a couple of hours. It would seem you have never visited the THX website found here. (http://http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-entertainment/home-theater/surround-sound-speaker-set-up/)

Tell me again about using true dipoles. This is going to be quite amusing no doubt!




I think you need your eyes checked. I never mentioned anything about the superiority of one thing over another anywhere.
I will continue to ignore your previous commentary. Is there anything you've said previously that you stick with?




Bipolar speakers also engage a rooms modes and nodes much more efficiently than a front radiating speaker.
Some do and some do not. Ignorance won't help you here.





I said plain and simple that monopoles interact with a room less than a dipole does.
And completely unsupported by any proof you've presented - including discussions of single vs. double monopoles.


I still believe this, and have proven it as well. A dipole may interact less with the room at low frequencies, but at mid and high frequencies it strongly interacts with the room via its rear reflection. Do you dispute this?
Do you really think there is a single answer ffor dozens of different designs regardless of numerous variables? Really?


A monopole may interact with the room more at low frequencies, but less at mid and high frequencies. Do you dispute this?
Depends upon the model chosen.


I didn't say a damn thing about your speakers, I was speaking of the technology. You take $hit much too personal for my taste.
Your veiled insult was obvious in the absence of real content. :)


Steering a signal has zero to do with a HT system. I could "place" and object anywhere in a sound field without using a panning mechanism. That my friend is not steering as steering requires a joystick to move images from one place to another. If I place a sound effect in the left speaker, and another effect in the right speaker a second later, that is not steering anything. So cut the dumb $hit and admit there is no such thing as a "steering imaging" when we are talking about HT system. What if the sound track was never played back in a HT system, panning and all? Is it now called "steering imaging" theater system?
I will repeat the simple question wherein you presumably have a reasonable answer. What do you call image movement that runs in both X and Y planes? Is this another question you are going to duck?


Give me a frickin break....
That was exactly what I was thinking as you moved your argument! :)

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-28-2010, 10:06 PM
Fine. We'll ignore your earlier comments regarding THX compliance as they are irrelevant.

You should have done that in the first place because THX compliance was never an issue in the first place.




You must have lingual problems with my posts. I quoted measurements and observations by Linkwitz. One might reasonably conclude, however, that the designer would evaluate the various pros and cons of the different designs. All of his designs are dipolar.

So damn what. All of John Dunlavy's speakers were sealed designs, does that make his speakers less capable than Linkwitz? No it does not, as I am sure he also has measurements and observation to support why he does what he does with sealed designs. Does this make all box speakers inferior to bass shy planars? No it doesn't, because not all box speakers sound boxy do they?. All speaker designs have strengths and weaknesses, and while a planar has no box, it also has no bass, fussy to place, and has too narrow of a sweet spot.



I will follow your suggestion and consider all your previous comments as "useless BS".

I will do the same with yours.




Take you seriously? Why would I do that when you have stated two different concepts in the space of a couple of hours. It would seem you have never visited the THX website found here. (http://http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-entertainment/home-theater/surround-sound-speaker-set-up/)

So what the hell is your point here. I cannot see where my statements are in conflict with anything on the THX website. It is obvious to me that you are having trouble with HT language and that is all.


Tell me again about using true dipoles. This is going to be quite amusing no doubt!

I have already covered it already. Are you so blind that you did not see it? I guess it would be no more amusing than you trying to pass off link that addressed bass frequencies only, and tried to pass it off as meaning the full 20-20khz spectrum.


I will continue to ignore your previous commentary. Is there anything you've said previously that you stick with?

I don't give a flying fxxx what you do, and you should know that by now. You can go and drown yourself, and I wouldn't give a damn.



Some do and some do not. Ignorance won't help you here.

Whatever. I suppose you are going to use the driver difference argument again. All bipoles operate in the same fashion just like all dipoles or they would not be called dipoles or bipoles. It is that clear cut.




And completely unsupported by any proof you've presented - including discussions of single vs. double monopoles.

The proof was there, you just ignored it like you do with other things you don't agree with.



Do you really think there is a single answer ffor dozens of different designs regardless of numerous variables? Really?

A dipole is called a dipole because of its radiation pattern, and because the front wave of the speaker is out of phase with the rear wave.. There is no variable in that, and it remains that way no matter what kind of drivers you use. .

Like a bipole speaker, a dipole speaker outputs sound from both sides of the cabinet. The difference is dipole speakers are ‘out of phase’, which means that one speaker is outputting sound while the other is not, and vice-versa.

A bipole is called a bipole because of its radiation pattern and the front and rear waves are in phase. There is no variable to that, no matter what drivers are used.

bipole speaker are ‘in phase’, meaning that both speakers output sound simultaneously. Bipole speakers create a diffuse surround effect so the location of the speaker cannot be pinpointed

A monopole is called monopole because of its forward firing radiation pattern and there is no variable to that no matter what drivers you use.

A direct radiating speaker outputs sound directly into the room towards the listeners.

http://stereos.about.com/od/advancedstereotopics/bb/ssspeakers.htm

None of this has anything to do with drivers, or numerous designs. It is given its distinction based on its characteristic. It is just that simple, and when one makes it more complex, they are just BS'ing period.



Depends upon the model chosen.

Bull$hit, and you know it.



Your veiled insult was obvious in the absence of real content. :)

I don't do veiled insults. Either you are an a$$hole, or you are not. If you are, I just call you an a$$hole directly. No veil needed. The content was right in the link you posted, and are now choosing to ignore it. How convenient.

My comments were directed at speakers that are bass challenged, fussy to place, and have a constricted sweet spot. It made no distinction to who owned that design because I don't care about that. Now if you took it personally, that is your damn problem, not mine.



I will repeat the simple question wherein you presumably have a reasonable answer. What do you call image movement that runs in both X and Y planes? Is this another question you are going to duck?

Since there is nothing in any mixing tool box that is currently used that can move images in the Y plane, I call it nothing. In the X plane it is called panning, not steering. Steering is used in an active matrix format like Dolby Pro logic. We don't steer anything, we pan it. If you are referring to Iosono sound, it hasn't been used in the theater, so it is irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Even if it was, it would still be called panning.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panning_(audio)


So, since your commentary was for rear placement, how exactly would you place a true dipole in the back of the room? Obviously, it would not be on the back wall as THX placement dictates.

Put on the glasses and look again.

THX placement does not recommend dipoles on the back walls, they are recommended for the side walls only. They recommend direct radiators for the back wall. Look at the speaker illustration again, you are totally confused.
I can't believe you could not see the difference between the side speaker illustration, and the center rear speaker illustration. You can't see that the center rear illustration looks like the L/R fronts? This is a "duh" moment for sure.
Once again (since it is obvious you didn't get it the first time) the term "rear speakers" in HT speak refers to the surround speakers that are placed to the sides of the listening position. If you look on the back of your receiver where you connect the speaker cables for the surround speakers, it is labeled "rear speakers". The label for the back speakers is called "center back" speakers not rear speakers. While this may not be clear to you, it is pretty well known in HT circles. I don't think I moved my position at all. I think you just do not understand HT language.

In a home theater, they are generally placed to the side of the main listening area with the poles firing to the front and back of the room, never directly at the listener. The result is that the sound bounces off the walls of the room, successfully emulating the speaker arrays of the movie theater.

http://www.dvdsurround.ch/berichte/thx_certification.html



That was exactly what I was thinking as you moved your argument! :)

rw

Don't think I moved my argument as much as you tried to mislead with yours.

Geoffcin
07-29-2010, 03:39 AM
Have a point to make? Make it!

But please guys, NO name calling.

theaudiohobby
07-29-2010, 05:05 AM
A monopole may interact with the room more at low frequencies, but less at mid and high frequencies. Do you dispute this?
Depends upon the model chosen.

Not so, dipoles always interact more with the room at mid and high frequencies in comparison to monopoles. At low frequencies, dipoles interact less with room due to dipole cancellation but the side-effect is probably worse, decreased bass power as the wave and the anti-wave increasingly cancel each other out. A curved pane reduces the anti-wave radiation towards the rear boundary at the expense of increased radiation toward the side boundaries, there is no free lunch.

Those interested in a graphical illustration please open this link (http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/rad2/mdq.html)

E-Stat
07-29-2010, 05:42 AM
So what the hell is your point here. I cannot see where my statements are in conflict with anything on the THX website.
Hmmm. First you say:

"In HT, bipolar speaker belong in the rear..."

Yet, later you say:

"You don't put THX dipoles in the back of the room..."

So, which answer is it?


Whatever. I suppose you are going to use the driver difference argument again. All bipoles operate in the same fashion just like all dipoles or they would not be called dipoles or bipoles. It is that clear cut.
Only to those who have no understanding of dispersion. Forget dipoles for a moment. Do all monopoles, regardless of driver design radiate the same ? Obviously not!


The proof was there, you just ignored it like you do with other things you don't agree with.
Using single vs. double monopoles to prove the difference between monopoles and dipoles? That is hilarious!


]Bull$hit, and you know it.
What I know is that you ignore dispersion. Do you understand that concept? Ever heard of beaming? Ever notice that the sound of dome tweeters sounds pretty much the same even off axis? Are these observations beyond your comprehension?


My comments were directed at speakers that are bass challenged, fussy to place, and have a constricted sweet spot.
What does any of that have to do with the alleged room interaction of monopoles vs. dipoles?


We don't steer anything, we pan it.
Choose whatever term you wish to identify the movement of a sound source within the field. Such happens frequently in movies and never in music (short of theatrical tricks). Do you understand the difference?


THX placement does not recommend dipoles on the back walls
Exactly my point which conflicts with your statement:


"In HT, bipolar speaker belong in the rear..."

They do NOT belong in the rear. They belong on the sides. You remain confused about your rear.



This is a "duh" moment for sure.
Once again (since it is obvious you didn't get it the first time) the term "rear speakers" in HT speak refers to the surround speakers that are placed to the sides of the listening position. If you look on the back of your receiver where you connect the speaker cables for the surround speakers, it is labeled "rear speakers".
Indeed, it is! Your assertion is not supported by fact. When I look at the back of my receiver, the jacks are referred to as "left and right surround". The THX website concurs with NAD's usage and the word "rear" is completely absent. Look here (http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-entertainment/home-theater/surround-sound-speaker-set-up/). You really should research your answers before responding. Does this panel look familiar?

http://www.techedu.com/ProductImages//onkyo/PR-SC886P_1.jpg


rw

theaudiohobby
07-29-2010, 07:43 AM
..Only to those who have no understanding of dispersion. Forget dipoles for a moment. Do all monopoles, regardless of driver design radiate the same ? Obviously not!..
Could you elaborate on your comments, for example, the dispersion pattern of the Magneplaner 3.6R and the Quad 989 are not exactly the same however the patttern is dipolar for both speakers?


What I know is that you ignore dispersion. Do you understand that concept? Ever heard of beaming? Ever notice that the sound of dome tweeters sounds pretty much the same even off axis?
A dome tweeter radiation get's more directional as the operating frequency increases therefore could you elaborate on "dome tweeters sounds pretty much the same even off axis"?

E-Stat
07-29-2010, 08:17 AM
Could you elaborate on your comments, for example, the dispersion pattern of the Magneplaner 3.6R and the Quad 989 are not exactly the same however the radiation patttern of both is dipolar?
Your question goes to the heart of my observation. Given Sir T's sweeping statement regarding ALL dipoles, a better example would be to contrast the radiation of the Quad vs. the Linkwitz Orion. Both are dipole radiators - yet the polar response and dispersion of the flat electrostatic panels is very different from that of the front and rear facing dome tweeters. The Orion, like most dynamic speakers has far wider dispersion which requires more in the way of absorbing its lateral radiation at the first reflection points. Side wall interaction is far greater. Tom Danley, a speaker designer of high directivity sound reinforcement horns, summarizes the point here. (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=58678&highlight=directivity+tomservo&r=)

"If one measured two speaker systems that had an identical amplitude response (and all other things equal) BUT one was a wide dispersion speaker and the other narrow, they would measure identically outdoors. Once in the room however, the response curve taken at the listening position (a place that actually matters more than at one meter) will be much worse for the wide dispersion speaker as it contains much more room sound. With a narrow speaker, in a living room, one can measure a variance of say + -3dB greater than the one meter curve while a dome /cone system in the same location is more like + - 10-20dB. "


A dome tweeter radiation get's more directional as the operating frequency increases therefore could you elaborate on "dome tweeters sounds pretty much the same even off axis"?
Using the same speakers for comparison, which one do you think will sound closer at say 45 degrees off axis as compared with its on axis response- the Orion or the Quad?

rw

PeruvianSkies
07-29-2010, 08:39 AM
Your question goes to the heart of my observation. Given Sir T's sweeping statement regarding ALL dipoles, a better example would be to contrast the radiation of the Quad vs. the Linkwitz Orion. Both are dipole radiators - yet the polar response and dispersion of the flat electrostatic panels is very different from that of the front and rear facing dome tweeters. The Orion, like most dynamic speakers has far wider dispersion which requires more in the way of absorbing its lateral radiation at the first reflection points. Side wall interaction is far greater. Tom Danley, a speaker designer of high directivity sound reinforcement horns, summarizes the point here. (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=58678&highlight=directivity+tomservo&r=)

"If one measured two speaker systems that had an identical amplitude response (and all other things equal) BUT one was a wide dispersion speaker and the other narrow, they would measure identically outdoors. Once in the room however, the response curve taken at the listening position (a place that actually matters more than at one meter) will be much worse for the wide dispersion speaker as it contains much more room sound. With a narrow speaker, in a living room, one can measure a variance of say + -3dB greater than the one meter curve while a dome /cone system in the same location is more like + - 10-20dB. "


Using the same speakers for comparison, which one do you think will sound closer at say 45 degrees off axis as compared with its on axis response- the Orion or the Quad?

rw


Awesome. Thank you e-stat for bringing your wealth of real experience to this thread regarding electrostats! I am looking forward to more discussion on this topic...

PeruvianSkies
07-29-2010, 09:06 AM
There are a couple of people here that are much more qualified than I am to interpret speaker measurements. However, I have looked at various versions of NRC measurements published in magazines for over 30 years and think I have learned something from them.

I think the first one to look at is Chart 2, the Listening Window response. You will notice that it is almost astonishingly flat for a speaker. This gives a good idea of how good the speaker can sound if well set up. It has a slight downward slope, which means that though the highs are there, the speaker probably will not sound bright.

One may compare with the Paradigm Signature S8. It shows a very flat Listening Window response where it counts most with a slight downward slope, too.

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/paradigm_signature_s8/

Since RGA hates my Signature S2 speakers, let's take a glance at its NRC measurements, too. The are quite even, too, though they have some small variations. The chief anomaly in the Listening Window curve is the very narrow dip about 800 Hz, which shows up in all the curves. It has little audible significance, although John Atkinson thinks he heard a minor effect on some note on the clarinet and on test tones.

http://www.soundstagemagazine.com/measurements/paradigm_signature_s2/

You may want to look at How We Test Speakers, which is linked from every set of speaker measurements Soundstage publishes:

http://www.soundstagenetwork.com/measurements/test_loudspeakers.htm

Chart 1 shows the horizontal dispersion, which is very good. The top curves for the T6 track each other very closely all the way to 20 kHz. They show a very slight rise between 1.5 and 3 kHz or so, which probably makes them sound slightly more forward than the Paradigm Signature, but still very neutral. Also, with good curves that track each other closely, one would expect that the speaker would not call attention to itself.

The bottom curves track each other quite closely, too. The measurements also give some idea as to the useful bass response in a normal room in a house. The bass is down about 10 dB around 30 Hz. Paradigm gives a DIN specification for LF extension but PSB just gives the -10 dB point, which has accords with my own experience.

It looks like the T6 would image very well. All in all, the measurements are very, very good. I heard the larger T8 and think I could easily live with them.

The best explanation for the layperson I know as to how the dispersion will affect the performance in a normal room is found in an interview John Atkinson of Stereophile did with Paul Barton in 1997:

http://stereophile.com/interviews/231/

The distortion curves indicate it will play quite loudly without distress. The impedance curve indicates that it should be used with an amplifier that will handle 4 ohm loads, but other than that, it does not look like a difficult load.

I would say your analysis is spot-on with regards to the graphs and what I have experienced listening to these speakers for the past 4 years. Thanks for your input.

frenchmon
07-29-2010, 10:01 AM
Sorry, but I'm not understanding the gist of your comments. You are contrasting monopoles with dipoles and describe a comparison using a configuration that I use in the garage: double (inverted) Advents? I'm missing something.

http://home.cablelynx.com/~rhw/audio/advents.jpg


The degree to which dipoles interact with the side walls vary greatly, based upon the driver design and the room treatments employed. When you speak of conventional cones 'n domes dipoles, then you are using wide dispersion (and high interaction) drivers. Quite a few planar designs, on the other hand, inherently exhibit more directivity with less room interaction.

rw

Nice Bike....dont care about the dipoles but the bike is nice.

E-Stat
07-29-2010, 11:49 AM
Nice Bike....dont care about the dipoles but the bike is nice.
It gets me where I want to go rather quickly. :)

ps: Those are monopole Advents.

rw

theaudiohobby
07-29-2010, 01:20 PM
Your question goes to the heart of my observation. Given Sir T's sweeping statement regarding ALL dipoles, a better example would be to contrast the radiation of the Quad vs. the Linkwitz Orion. Both are dipole radiators - yet the polar response and dispersion of the flat electrostatic panels is very different from that of the front and rear facing dome tweeters. The Orion, like most dynamic speakers has far wider dispersion which requires more in the way of absorbing its lateral radiation at the first reflection points. Side wall interaction is far greater. Tom Danley, a speaker designer of high directivity sound reinforcement horns, summarizes the point here. (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=58678&highlight=directivity+tomservo&r=)

"If one measured two speaker systems that had an identical amplitude response (and all other things equal) BUT one was a wide dispersion speaker and the other narrow, they would measure identically outdoors. Once in the room however, the response curve taken at the listening position (a place that actually matters more than at one meter) will be much worse for the wide dispersion speaker as it contains much more room sound. With a narrow speaker, in a living room, one can measure a variance of say + -3dB greater than the one meter curve while a dome /cone system in the same location is more like + - 10-20dB. "

Your elaboration missed a very pertinent point (see link), a box speaker is a monopole only at low frequencies, The deviation above only relate that region. Above that its only forward radiating. A dipole is always radiating front and rear at all frequencies


Using the same speakers for comparison, which one do you think will sound closer at say 45 degrees off axis as compared with its on axis response- the Orion or the Quad?

Difficult without looking at the design or polar plot, it may well have lower room interaction as it narrower design therefore dipole cancellation starts higher up. secondly the tweeter and woofer are placed in waveguides.

Pat D
07-29-2010, 02:00 PM
I would say your analysis is spot-on with regards to the graphs and what I have experienced listening to these speakers for the past 4 years. Thanks for your input.

You're very welcome! :smile5:

E-Stat
07-29-2010, 02:10 PM
Your elaboration missed a very pertinent point (see link), a box speaker is a monopole only at low frequencies
So my Advents and Polks are dipoles because they are in a box? Is that what you mean?


A dipole is always radiating front and rear at all frequencies
Exactly. That's why the Orion+ has two woofers and two tweeters, one of each facing forward and one of each facing rearwards and uses an open backed midrange. I'm not sure why you chose to state the obvious.


Difficult without looking at the design or polar plot
Sorry, somehow I thought you had actually heard a Quad and any speaker using a dome tweeter and understand the difference.


it may well have lower room interaction as it narrower design therefore dipole cancellation starts higher up. secondly the tweeter and woofer are placed in waveguides.
You've lost me again. Neither the Quad nor the Orion are placed in waveguides. The Orion + uses Seas tweeters mounted on either side of a flat baffle.

rw

poppachubby
07-29-2010, 02:20 PM
Hey Ralph, please come and look at my Bozak thread. I was hoping you would have some input for me. It's an amazing design and layout inside, you would like it.

Pat D
07-29-2010, 02:40 PM
Your elaboration missed a very pertinent point (see link), a box speaker is a monopole only at low frequencies, The deviation above only relate that region. Above that its only forward radiating. A dipole is always radiating front and rear at all frequencies



Difficult without looking at the design or polar plot, it may well have lower room interaction as it narrower design therefore dipole cancellation starts higher up. secondly the tweeter and woofer are placed in waveguides.

I think one thing missing from this discussion is the size and shape of the room. Linkwitz thinks ideally the room should be 20' X 15' X 8' or larger. As it happens, E-stat's room is larger than that: 25' x 16' x 8'

http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/966.html

In my experience, it is a lot easier to get good overall results with an electrostatic dipole in a large room. And E-stat's room is quite large.

When one of my Quad ELS-63s developed a problem with its power supply, we considered repairing it or even getting one of the newer Quad electrostats, maybe a 2905. However, our house really does not seem to have enough space to get the best out of them. So, I decided to look mostly at forward radiating speakers, and ended up getting some very fine monitor speakers. They are very neutral sounding, more so than the Quads, and they are much less particular about placement. They sound quite good even when my wife moves them back out of the way. Moreover, the balance seems not to change sharply when one moves even to the side and away in the dining room or kitchen areas, which is one thing that wide and even horizontal dispersion gives us. Much as I enjoyed a lot of things with the Quads, in our present house, I am even happier with my current monitors.

theaudiohobby
07-29-2010, 03:00 PM
So my Advents and Polks are dipoles because they are in a box? Is that what you mean?
err no...however.both are forward radiators in mid and high frequencies, by definition they have less room interaction than dipoles at those frequencies.

Exactly. That's why the Orion+ has two woofers and two tweeters, one of each facing forward and one of each facing rearwards and uses an open backed midrange. I'm not sure why you chose to state the obvious.
I was discussing forward radiators in this case

Sorry, somehow I thought you had actually heard a Quad and any speaker using a dome tweeter and understand the difference.
Yes, I have and understand the difference but on the whole in the my current listening space I prefer the balance of strengths and weakness of a forward radiator.

You've lost me again. Neither the Quad nor the Orion are placed in waveguides. The Orion + uses Seas tweeters mounted on either side of a flat baffle.
You may want to look more closely at the Orion design and linkwitz site, the woofers/tweeters are recessed into the baffle for good reason.

theaudiohobby
07-29-2010, 03:08 PM
I think one thing missing from this discussion is the size and shape of the room. Linkwitz thinks ideally the room should be 20' X 15' X 8' or larger. As it happens, E-stat's room is larger than that: 25' x 16' x 8'

http://cgi.audioasylum.com/systems/966.html

In my experience, it is a lot easier to get good overall results with an electrostatic dipole in a large room. And E-stat's room is quite large. .
Thanks Pat D, I had overlooked that, as it so happens my listening space at 13'2'' x 13'2'' x 7'7" is much smaller than that, forward radiators work much better for me in that space.

E-Stat
07-29-2010, 04:58 PM
err no...however.both are forward radiators in mid and high frequencies, by definition they have less room interaction than dipoles at those frequencies.
What then did you mean about boxes being dipolar?


Yes, I have and understand the difference but on the whole in the my current listening space I prefer the balance of strengths and weakness of a forward radiator.
Why then would you need to see a polar response before commenting if you already understand the vastly different dispersion characteristics of a flat panel electrostat vs. a dome tweeter?


You may want to look more closely at the Orion design and linkwitz site, the woofers/tweeters are recessed into the baffle for good reason.
Apparently, we are not talking about the same speakers. The tweeters are flush mounted to the baffle. That might explain your comment about their using waveguides.

Quarter inch recession to flush mount frame (http://www.linkwitzlab.com/images/photos/Orion_build2.jpg)

rw

theaudiohobby
07-29-2010, 06:03 PM
What then did you mean about boxes being dipolar?
At I no point did I suggest that a box speaker was a dipole, I said they are monopoles at low frequencies and forward radiators at higher frequencies.

Why then would you need to see a polar response before commenting if you already understand the vastly different dispersion characteristics of a flat panel electrostat vs.a dome tweeter?
Are they vastly different when the dome tweeter is configured as a dipole? We are discussing dipole behaviour of different speaker designs, recall my original example, the Quad 989 and the Magneplaner MG3.6/R, both are panels with different dispersion characteristics,point source dipole vs.line source dipole. IMO, the Orion is a point source dipole.


Apparently, we are not talking about the same speakers. The tweeters are flush mounted to the baffle. That might explain your comment about their using waveguides.

Quarter inch recession to flush mount frame (http://www.linkwitzlab.com/images/photos/Orion_build2.jpg) My mistake, that said read up Linkwitz's blog, the wide-baffle (http://www.linkwitzlab.com/orion++.htm) is designed to control the tweeter's radiation pattern.

"A second Seas Millennium tweeter is mounted on a separate, flat baffle in the rear of the existing tweeter. The added baffle was necessary to preserve a wide and uniform polar response for the tweeter...The ORION with rear tweeter added has become quite symmetrical between front and rear polar responses and has reduced output to the sides. "

Lastly, the woofers are indeed mounted in waveguides.

Pat D
07-29-2010, 06:34 PM
Hmmm. First you say:

"In HT, bipolar speaker belong in the rear..."

Yet, later you say:

"You don't put THX dipoles in the back of the room..."

rw

You do understand the difference between bipolar speaker and dipoles, don't you?

E-Stat
07-29-2010, 07:28 PM
At I no point did I suggest that a box speaker was a dipole, I said they are monopoles at low frequencies and forward radiators at higher frequencies.
Only now have you advanced the term "forward radiator". They are different from monopoles and dipoles?


Are they vastly different when the dome tweeter is configured as a dipole?
Adding another dome tweeter to the rear has no effect on the dispersion of the one in front.


IMO, the Orion is a point source dipole.
They are. With very different dispersion characteristics that directional panels.


Lastly, the woofers are indeed mounted in waveguides.
Waveguides? (http://www.linkwitzlab.com/images/photos/Laustsen-008.jpg) Aren't waveguides designed to be smooth and shape the output of a driver? Siggy calls it an "H frame". Looks just like a crude box to me.

rw

E-Stat
07-29-2010, 07:31 PM
You do understand the difference between bipolar speaker and dipoles, don't you?
Either generates sound in multiple directions, push pull or not. In any event, they are not recommended for use in the rear of the room if you follow THX guidelines (for which I couldn't care less unless I had some Logitech speakers).

rw

theaudiohobby
07-30-2010, 11:45 AM
Only now have you advanced the term "forward radiator". They are different from monopoles and dipoles?
Yes and I said as much when I introduced the term 3 posts (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=336074&postcount=195) ago, but for some reason you missed it, I said this

Your elaboration missed a very pertinent point (see link), a box speaker is a monopole only at low frequencies, The deviation above only relate that region. Above that its only forward radiating. A dipole is always radiating front and rear at all frequencies
And then this (http://forums.audioreview.com/showpost.php?p=336093&postcount=200)

err no...however.both are forward radiators in mid and high frequencies, by definition they have less room interaction than dipoles at those frequencies.
Leaving that aside, do you agree that by definition a forward radiator has less room interaction than a dipole radiator?

Adding another dome tweeter to the rear has no effect on the dispersion of the one in front.
Not exactly sure what you are trying say, however two dome tweeters, with absorbed back-waves, radiating along the same axis, configured such that one is forward facing and the other rearward facing, operating over the same frequencies but in anti-phase to each other would proximate to dipole radiation.

They are. With very different dispersion characteristics that directional panels.
Could you explain how these differences affect the room interaction characteristics of the speakers in question.

Waveguides? (http://www.linkwitzlab.com/images/photos/Laustsen-008.jpg) Aren't waveguides designed to be smooth and shape the output of a driver? Siggy calls it an "H frame". Looks just like a crude box to me.
Crude or not, it's still a waveguide and they modify the directivity of the speaker.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-30-2010, 12:19 PM
Hmmm. First you say:

"In HT, bipolar speaker belong in the rear..."

Yet, later you say:

"You don't put THX dipoles in the back of the room..."

So, which answer is it?

On two of my receivers, the left and right surround are labeled, Left rear, and right rear, even though those speakers are to be placed to the sides of the room. The back speakers are label BRL and BRR, meaning back rear left and back rear right. It may be different on other recievers, but on most of the 5.1 (and now at least one 7.1 reciever) recievers I have owned called the surrounds rears.



Only to those who have no understanding of dispersion. Forget dipoles for a moment. Do all monopoles, regardless of driver design radiate the same ? Obviously not!

A monopole is called a monopole because if its mono(meaning one, or in this case one direction)polar dispersion pattern. So while one monopolar speaker may have a 120x40 degree dispersion pattern over most of its operating range, and another may have a 90x60 degree dispersion pattern, it is all foward of the cabinet until you get into the low bass of which the dispersion pattern becomes omnidirectional. So yes, they radiate the same, but in different degrees.



Using single vs. double monopoles to prove the difference between monopoles and dipoles? That is hilarious!

If you were paying attention to what I wrote(and it is obvious you weren't), I was speaking about the difference between two designs, and how they interacted with the room. This is what I said.

Speakers that do not interact with the walls as much as a dipole does will preserve more of the original capture than a dipole will. Holmann Tomlinson proved this back in 1990 when I was still in college(and in his class), and that was the basis for the THX speaker certification

One monopole speaker had a very wide dispersion pattern in the horizontal and vertical plane(strongly engaged the room at all frequencies except the highest), the other speaker had a very controlled dispersion pattern in the horizontal plance, but a very limited dispersion pattern in the vertical plane(far fewer reflections in room overall). We were asked which sounded more like the headphones, the wide dispersion speaker which had many reflection off the side walls and ceiling, or the other with just side wall reflections. The speaker with the least interaction with the surrounding surfaces won, hence why the dipole was brought into the equation. A dipole(at mid and high frequencies) engages a rooms acoustics far more than a monopole speaker would because of its strong engagement with the front wall, and the walls in front of the speaker. It becomes more multidirectional as the frequencies go up, and the monopole speaker becomes more directional as frequencies go up.



What I know is that you ignore dispersion. Do you understand that concept? Ever heard of beaming? Ever notice that the sound of dome tweeters sounds pretty much the same even off axis? Are these observations beyond your comprehension?

I did not ignore dispersion, it was the very basis for my comments. Can you read? You are wrong about the dome tweeter. A dome tweeter beams with increasing frequency because the wavelengths it has to reproduce becomes smaller. Also it highly depends on how far off axis we are speaking of, so a blanket statement without context is pretty much useless.



What does any of that have to do with the alleged room interaction of monopoles vs. dipoles?

Monopoles will preserve more of the original ambience in a recording than a dipole will. Plain and simple. That was the basis of my comparison as I outlined before.



Choose whatever term you wish to identify the movement of a sound source within the field. Such happens frequently in movies and never in music (short of theatrical tricks). Do you understand the difference?

I didn't choose the term, it was called panning before I was born. Panning is used in music, just not the music you listen to(see Alan Parson's Up in the Air). So once again your "never" generalization does not apply. What you call a trick is actually called an "effect". If you are going to debate something, it might help of you learn the langauge of what you are debating. We don't do tricks when mixing soundtracks or music. Do you understand the diffence?



Exactly my point which conflicts with your statement:


"In HT, bipolar speaker belong in the rear..."

They do NOT belong in the rear. They belong on the sides. You remain confused about your rear.

Rear speakers is a very common way to describe the surround speakers- the terms are interchangeable, and always have been.

Read the opening line here

http://www.ehow.com/how_1000395_home-theater-rear-speakers.html

Look at what its called here:

http://www.fcitech.com/itemdetails.asp?mod=SAMSWA4000

Go to the bottom of the page and look at what they call them

http://www.cinemahometheaters.com/comparisons/jazz_speakers_jda2510_vs_jbl_csp_1550

Look for this line on this page.

http://www.brighthub.com/electronics/home-theater/articles/50513.aspx


the term 3-2 generally refers to three front speakers and two rear speakers.

Read more: http://www.brighthub.com/electronics/home-theater/articles/50513.aspx#ixzz0vCG0eAqK[/b]

AS you can see, the words surround and rear speakers are interchangable, and have been so HT's came to the consumer market. So my rear is not the problem, it is your ignorance of the interchangable words that is.



Indeed, it is! Your assertion is not supported by fact. When I look at the back of my receiver, the jacks are referred to as "left and right surround". The THX website concurs with NAD's usage and the word "rear" is completely absent. Look here (http://www.thx.com/consumer/home-entertainment/home-theater/surround-sound-speaker-set-up/). You really should research your answers before responding. Does this panel look familiar?

http://www.techedu.com/ProductImages//onkyo/PR-SC886P_1.jpg


rw

Well, my examples have disproved this already. I might want to brush up on your HT lingo before discussing the subject. You will have far fewer misunderstandings if you do.

I would like to address this comment of yours as well.

And more lifelike musical reproduction to these ears. Take your choices (and be honest about them)!

Let's be clear here. There is nothing more musical about a speaker who's radiation patterns works exactly the opposite of how acoustical instruments truly radiate.

Dipolar speakers are more directional in the low frequencies(by their design) and increasingly become multidirectional at higher frequencies. This is the exactly opposite of how acoustical instruments radiate in to the air. String instruments (and quite a few other instruments) are omnidirectional at lower frequencies(within their operating range), and become increasing directional as frequencies go up - much like a monopolar speaker does. Microphones also exibit this kind of behavior. There is nothing more "life like" with a speaker that works in the exactly opposite way that instruments radiate their sound into the air, and the way microphones capture them.

Pat D
07-30-2010, 05:57 PM
On two of my receivers, the left and right surround are labeled, Left rear, and right rear, even though those speakers are to be placed to the sides of the room. The back speakers are label BRL and BRR, meaning back rear left and back rear right. It may be different on other recievers, but on most of the 5.1 (and now at least one 7.1 reciever) recievers I have owned called the surrounds rears.




A monopole is called a monopole because if its mono(meaning one, or in this case one direction)polar dispersion pattern. So while one monopolar speaker may have a 120x40 degree dispersion pattern over most of its operating range, and another may have a 90x60 degree dispersion pattern, it is all foward of the cabinet until you get into the low bass of which the dispersion pattern becomes omnidirectional. So yes, they radiate the same, but in different degrees.




If you were paying attention to what I wrote(and it is obvious you weren't), I was speaking about the difference between two designs, and how they interacted with the room. This is what I said.

Speakers that do not interact with the walls as much as a dipole does will preserve more of the original capture than a dipole will. Holmann Tomlinson proved this back in 1990 when I was still in college(and in his class), and that was the basis for the THX speaker certification

One monopole speaker had a very wide dispersion pattern in the horizontal and vertical plane(strongly engaged the room at all frequencies except the highest), the other speaker had a very controlled dispersion pattern in the horizontal plance, but a very limited dispersion pattern in the vertical plane(far fewer reflections in room overall). We were asked which sounded more like the headphones, the wide dispersion speaker which had many reflection off the side walls and ceiling, or the other with just side wall reflections. The speaker with the least interaction with the surrounding surfaces won, hence why the dipole was brought into the equation. A dipole(at mid and high frequencies) engages a rooms acoustics far more than a monopole speaker would because of its strong engagement with the front wall, and the walls in front of the speaker. It becomes more multidirectional as the frequencies go up, and the monopole speaker becomes more directional as frequencies go up.




I did not ignore dispersion, it was the very basis for my comments. Can you read? You are wrong about the dome tweeter. A dome tweeter beams with increasing frequency because the wavelengths it has to reproduce becomes smaller. Also it highly depends on how far off axis we are speaking of, so a blanket statement without context is pretty much useless.




Monopoles will preserve more of the original ambience in a recording than a dipole will. Plain and simple. That was the basis of my comparison as I outlined before.




I didn't choose the term, it was called panning before I was born. Panning is used in music, just not the music you listen to(see Alan Parson's Up in the Air). So once again your "never" generalization does not apply. What you call a trick is actually called an "effect". If you are going to debate something, it might help of you learn the langauge of what you are debating. We don't do tricks when mixing soundtracks or music. Do you understand the diffence?




Rear speakers is a very common way to describe the surround speakers- the terms are interchangeable, and always have been.

Read the opening line here

http://www.ehow.com/how_1000395_home-theater-rear-speakers.html

Look at what its called here:

http://www.fcitech.com/itemdetails.asp?mod=SAMSWA4000

Go to the bottom of the page and look at what they call them

http://www.cinemahometheaters.com/comparisons/jazz_speakers_jda2510_vs_jbl_csp_1550

Look for this line on this page.

http://www.brighthub.com/electronics/home-theater/articles/50513.aspx


the term 3-2 generally refers to three front speakers and two rear speakers.

Read more: http://www.brighthub.com/electronics/home-theater/articles/50513.aspx#ixzz0vCG0eAqK[/b]

AS you can see, the words surround and rear speakers are interchangable, and have been so HT's came to the consumer market. So my rear is not the problem, it is your ignorance of the interchangable words that is.




Well, my examples have disproved this already. I might want to brush up on your HT lingo before discussing the subject. You will have far fewer misunderstandings if you do.

I would like to address this comment of yours as well.

And more lifelike musical reproduction to these ears. Take your choices (and be honest about them)!

Let's be clear here. There is nothing more musical about a speaker who's radiation patterns works exactly the opposite of how acoustical instruments truly radiate.

Dipolar speakers are more directional in the low frequencies(by their design) and increasingly become multidirectional at higher frequencies. This is the exactly opposite of how acoustical instruments radiate in to the air. String instruments (and quite a few other instruments) are omnidirectional at lower frequencies(within their operating range), and become increasing directional as frequencies go up - much like a monopolar speaker does. Microphones also exibit this kind of behavior. There is nothing more "life like" with a speaker that works in the exactly opposite way that instruments radiate their sound into the air, and the way microphones capture them.

Look at it this way: at least E-stat got the discussion away from Audio Note! Not that it was much of an improvement. Those two can complicate a discussion pretty well, even where the concepts are fairly basic, though I have come across a number who are even more skilled at it. :rolleyes:

There seems to be a difference in how the British and Americans use the term "monopole," a term I have seen used in philosophy but not in audio until now. Theaudiohobby provided a link to Kettering University which uses the term to mean omnidirectional:

"A monopole is a source which radiates sound equally well in all directions. The simplest example of a monopole source would be a sphere whose radius alternately expands and contracts sinusoidally. The monopole source creates a sound wave by alternately introducing and removing fluid into the surrounding area. A boxed loudspeaker at low frequencies acts as a monopole."

http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/rad2/mdq.html

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-30-2010, 06:38 PM
Look at it this way: at least E-stat got the discussion away from Audio Note! Not that it was much of an improvement. Those two can complicate a discussion pretty well, even where the concepts are fairly basic, though I have come across a number who are even more skilled at it. :rolleyes:

Are you referring to moi?:biggrin5: LOLOLOL

I am particular confused at why anyone would take exception to the point I made about a bass shy, hard to place speaker with a constricted sweet spot would not be welcomed in my room. Everyone likes their brand or design(or brands and designs in my case) of a speaker for their own personal reasons. However, that reason cannot be because X design is better at reproducing music, because you can find a Y design that can do it well too. There are no perfect speakers, or perfect designs out there. All speaker designs have strengths and weaknesses, and a designers goal is to balance them off to get an excellent result in the end. So this whole boxless speakers sound more musical is a load of crap, because their are some box speakers that excel with music as well.


There seems to be a difference in how the British and Americans use the term "monopole," a term I have seen used in philosophy but not in audio until now. Theaudiohobby provided a link to Kettering University which uses the term to mean omnidirectional:

"A monopole is a source which radiates sound equally well in all directions. The simplest example of a monopole source would be a sphere whose radius alternately expands and contracts sinusoidally. The monopole source creates a sound wave by alternately introducing and removing fluid into the surrounding area. A boxed loudspeaker at low frequencies acts as a monopole."

http://paws.kettering.edu/~drussell/Demos/rad2/mdq.html

Wow, that's bloody odd. I thought a speaker with a perfect spheric radiation pattern was called a omnipolar speaker. Me so confused :yesnod:

To acheive the utmost in diffuse surround sound, some people choose to go with a speaker of omnipole design. This type of speaker radiates sound in 360 degrees, creating very life-like surround effects. Omnipole speakers work incredibly well for small home theaters because they radiate diffuse sound in all directions and give a sense of a much larger space.

http://speakers.lifetips.com/cat/61232/surround-sound-speakers/index.html

Bottom of page.

Pat D
07-30-2010, 09:22 PM
Are you referring to moi?:biggrin5: LOLOLOL

I am particular confused at why anyone would take exception to the point I made about a bass shy, hard to place speaker with a constricted sweet spot would not be welcomed in my room. Everyone likes their brand or design(or brands and designs in my case) of a speaker for their own personal reasons. However, that reason cannot be because X design is better at reproducing music, because you can find a Y design that can do it well too. There are no perfect speakers, or perfect designs out there. All speaker designs have strengths and weaknesses, and a designers goal is to balance them off to get an excellent result in the end. So this whole boxless speakers sound more musical is a load of crap, because their are some box speakers that excel with music as well.



Wow, that's bloody odd. I thought a speaker with a perfect spheric radiation pattern was called a omnipolar speaker. Me so confused :yesnod:

To acheive the utmost in diffuse surround sound, some people choose to go with a speaker of omnipole design. This type of speaker radiates sound in 360 degrees, creating very life-like surround effects. Omnipole speakers work incredibly well for small home theaters because they radiate diffuse sound in all directions and give a sense of a much larger space.

http://speakers.lifetips.com/cat/61232/surround-sound-speakers/index.html

Bottom of page.

Not quite everybody who posts here is North American, so it is not surprising that sometimes different terms are used.

Thanks for giving me some new insights in the discussions.

theaudiohobby
07-31-2010, 04:29 AM
Not quite everybody who posts here is North American, so it is not surprising that sometimes different terms are used.

Thanks for giving me some new insights in the discussions.

Thanks Sir T and Pat D, I was not aware that a monopole were referred to as a omnipole in North America. which means that forward radiator and monopole are synonymous terms in North America.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
07-31-2010, 07:42 AM
Thanks Sir T and Pat D, I was not aware that a monopole were referred to as a omnipole in North America. which means that forward radiator and monopole are synonymous terms in North America.

I guess there are ther synonymous terms out there as well. Like Surround speaker and rear speaker.

When you say rear speakers to a person familiar with home theater, they know exactly what you mean. You say it to a two channel person, and they think it literally means putting them in the back of the room.

Pat D
07-31-2010, 09:56 AM
Thanks Sir T and Pat D, I was not aware that a monopole were referred to as a omnipole in North America. which means that forward radiator and monopole are synonymous terms in North America.

I had only heard of the term, "monopole" in philosophy in the form of "monopolar." However, what was meant was quite evident in the link you provided. Even so, it was quite clear what was meant from the context for anyone actually wishing to understand.

theaudiohobby
07-31-2010, 05:07 PM
Even so, it was quite clear what was meant from the context for anyone actually wishing to understand.Therein lies the rub

Pat D
07-31-2010, 05:11 PM
Therein lies the rub

Even so, on the whole, I think this was a better discussion of speakers than I remember ever seeing at AA.

E-Stat
08-02-2010, 05:42 AM
Yes
No. A direct radiator is simply a non-horn. It is not a parallel descriptor to the discussion.


Leaving that aside, do you agree that by definition a forward radiator has less room interaction than a dipole radiator?
Depends upon the dispersion of the drivers involved. Some interact far more with the side walls.


two dome tweeters, with absorbed back-waves, radiating along the same axis, configured such that one is forward facing and the other rearward facing, operating over the same frequencies but in anti-phase to each other would proximate to dipole radiation.
So, adding a second tweeter behind the first will magically remove off axis radiation of the other? Are you serious?



Crude or not, it's still a waveguide and they modify the directivity of the speaker.
It's a box.

rw

E-Stat
08-02-2010, 05:55 AM
So yes, they radiate the same, but in different degrees.
I'm glad you agree.


... because of its strong engagement with the front wall, and the walls in front of the speaker. It becomes more multidirectional as the frequencies go up, and the monopole speaker becomes more directional as frequencies go up.
The former is where room treatments come into the play. The latter is true only when you limit the discussion to wide dispersion dynamic drivers.


A dome tweeter beams with increasing frequency because the wavelengths it has to reproduce becomes smaller. Also it highly depends on how far off axis we are speaking of, so a blanket statement without context is pretty much useless.
Apparently, you have never heard a Quad before. The HF dispersion is far less than a dome tweeter.


I didn't choose the term, it was called panning before I was born.
As is the word steering. It means to "direct the course" which is what happens with sound effects.


We don't do tricks when mixing soundtracks or music. Do you understand the diffence?
If you recall, my reference was to the movement of the flight of an arrow, not music. I am aware of many parallel terms. Choose which one you favor.


Rear speakers is a very common way to describe the surround speakers- the terms are interchangeable, and always have been.
Just not used universally as demonstrated by those who use other terms such as Onkyo, NAD and THX. You asked me to look at the back of my receiver. I did and looked at the back of your processor as well.

rw

E-Stat
08-02-2010, 05:57 AM
Thanks Sir T and Pat D, I was not aware that a monopole were referred to as a omnipole in North America. which means that forward radiator and monopole are synonymous terms in North America.
Ah, that explains it. :)

rw

theaudiohobby
08-02-2010, 12:52 PM
No. A direct radiator is simply a non-horn. It is not a parallel descriptor to the discussion.I said forward radiator not direct radiator, big difference.

Depends upon the dispersion of the drivers involved. Some interact far more with the side walls. Correct, but what's under discussion here is the rear boundary not the lateral boundary , the first reflection of a dipole is off both the rear and front boundaries that is never the case for a forward radiatior irrespective of configuration. Therefore by definition a dipole interacts with the rear boundary to a much greater extent than a forward radiator irrespective of configuration..

So, adding a second tweeter behind the first will magically remove off axis radiation of the other? Are you serious? But Linkwitz did not do that, the backwave of both tweeters are damped and the additional tweeter is recesed into a wide baffle to control its vertical and horizontal dispersion.

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/images/photos/RearTweeter.jpg

It's a box.Box or not, it's still a waveguide.

E-Stat
08-02-2010, 01:11 PM
I said forward radiator not direct radiator, big difference.
Whatever. There are monopoles, dipoles and omnipoles. You draw a non-parallel distinction.


Correct, but what's under discussion here is the rear boundary not the lateral boundary
Perhaps that is YOUR discussion, not mine. Side walls have a large room effect on the sound. That has been my point all along.


But Linkwitz did not do that...
Sure he did. The rear tweeter is directly behind the front. Look here (http://www.linkwitzlab.com/images/photos/Laustsen-008.jpg).



... the additional the tweeter is recesed into a wide baffle to control its vertical and horizontal dispersion.
Which has zero effect on the front tweeter's lateral dispersion. Both tweeters and the midrange look flush mounted to me.

rw

poppachubby
08-02-2010, 01:22 PM
Hey Ralph, any thoughts on Bozak speakers? Are they truly the cats azz? I have never heard any...

theaudiohobby
08-02-2010, 01:28 PM
Whatever. There are monopoles, dipoles and omnipoles. You draw a non-parallel distinction. Nice wriggle.....

Perhaps that is YOUR discussion, not mine. Side walls have a large room effect on the sound. That has been my point all along. So you agree that a dipole interacts with the rear boundary to a far greater extent than a forward radiator(monopole), correct? And interaction with lateral boundaries is dependent on configuration, correct?


Sure he did. The rear tweeter is directly behind the front. Look here (http://www.linkwitzlab.com/images/photos/Laustsen-008.jpg).
Which has zero effect on the front tweeter's lateral dispersion. Both tweeters and the midrange look flush mounted to me. The design has a massive impact on the backwave of both tweeters and by definition the front tweeter's lateral dispersion.

E-Stat
08-02-2010, 01:41 PM
Nice wriggle..
As I stated earlier, perhaps these are semantic differences from across the pond. You call it a bonnet - we call it a hood.


So you agree that a dipole interacts with the rear boundary to a far greater extent than a forward radiator(monopole), correct.
Sure. There is output to the rear! In my room, the most linear measured bass response was achieved at eight feet out into the room. Specific placement tuned the bass response. The rear wave is controlled via bass traps.


The design has a massive impact on the backwave of both tweeters and by definition the front tweeter's lateral dispersion.
I'll let you argue that point with Siggy since he disagrees. The following text is found here. (http://www.linkwitzlab.com/orion++.htm)

"The rear tweeter does not contribute to the direct sound coming from the front of the speaker over a very wide angle of +/-60 degrees off-axis. This is due to the relatively wide baffle that I use for ORION. It is also an indication that there is little diffraction effect from this wide baffle and hence the good imaging. Thus under anechoic conditions, or outdoors, one would never hear the rear tweeter from any normal listening position. In a room, therefore, anything that is heard of the tweeter, is heard via reflections off walls and objects. "

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-02-2010, 01:54 PM
I'm glad you agree.

Actually I disagreed. Your angling on this issue is very telling. It does not matter the degree of dispersion, the point is it is all foward of the front baffle.



The former is where room treatments come into the play. The latter is true only when you limit the discussion to wide dispersion dynamic drivers.

If you add room treatments then why the need for the rearward output in the first place? So are you saying that planar drivers behave differently when radiating forwardly only?



Apparently, you have never heard a Quad before. The HF dispersion is far less than a dome tweeter.

I have heard the Quad before (more assumptions), and you are not addressing the point at all.



As is the word steering. It means to "direct the course" which is what happens with sound effects.

Nope, steering is no where to be found in mix langauge, sorry. Steering (for the third time) is what is what done in a active matrix processor, not in a dubbing stage.



If you recall, my reference was to the movement of the flight of an arrow, not music. I am aware of many parallel terms. Choose which one you favor.

You are stinking up the room with your BS. There are no parallel terms to describe the panning of an effect, and you can't make one up at your convinence either.



Just not used universally as demonstrated by those who use other terms such as Onkyo, NAD and THX. You asked me to look at the back of my receiver. I did and looked at the back of your processor as well.

I offered link after link that showed the universal use of the word. If you are dimissing it, that is not entirely out of character for you.

theaudiohobby
08-02-2010, 02:07 PM
As I stated earlier, perhaps these are semantic differences from across the pond. You call it a bonnet - we call it a hood ....

Sure. There is output to the rear! In my room, the most linear measured bass response was achieved at eight feet out into the room. Specific placement tuned the bass response. The rear wave is controlled via bass traps. Excellent, we got there in the end, makes one wonder why you disputed Sir T's essential point about greater room interaction due to rear-radiation in the first place.

I'll let you argue that point with Siggy since he disagrees. The following text is found here. (http://www.linkwitzlab.com/orion++.htm)

"The rear tweeter does not contribute to the direct sound coming from the front of the speaker over a very wide angle of +/-60 degrees off-axis. This is due to the relatively wide baffle that I use for ORION. It is also an indication that there is little diffraction effect from this wide baffle and hence the good imaging. Thus under anechoic conditions, or outdoors, one would never hear the rear tweeter from any normal listening position. In a room, therefore, anything that is heard of the tweeter, is heard via reflections off walls and objects. "Read more closely the text is in perfect agreement with what I said previously, Siggy talks about the front of the speaker. In the previous configuration i.e. without the rear tweeter, the backwave comes from the back of the tweeter (and speaker) not the front.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-02-2010, 02:17 PM
Excellent, we got there in the end, makes one wonder why you disputed Sir T's essential point about greater room interaction due to rear-radiation in the first place.

It's called just for the sake of it, or just because I can.

E-Stat
08-02-2010, 02:31 PM
It does not matter the degree of dispersion, the point is it is all foward of the front baffle.
What then did you mean by a "matter of degrees"? What is the variable.


If you add room treatments then why the need for the rearward output in the first place?
Several factors. Dipolar bass tends to provide smoother in-room response. Since I prefer the resolution and coherency of a single virtually massless driver, I choose what is available. I also prefer line sources to point sources.


So are you saying that planar drivers behave differently when radiating forwardly only?
With respect to side wall interaction due to lateral dispersion, no.


Nope, steering is no where to be found in mix langauge, sorry.
The concept should be clear to those who understand the meaning of the word. The sound of the arrow was steered from right front to left rear. I really couldn't care less how the effect was achieved. Home theater uses that precise placement to good effect.


There are no parallel terms to describe the panning of an effect, and you can't make one up at your convinence either.
I speak of the English language, not limited to mixing jargon.


I offered link after link that showed the universal use of the word. If you are dimissing it, that is not entirely out of character for you.
If it were universal, then everyone would use the term. Some do. Many, however, like THX, NAD, Onkyo, Sony, Pioneer, McIntosh, Krell (and likely a host of others) do not. This is a great example of where there can be more than one term for the same concept. I find that the word "rear" more closely associated with "back" than to "surrounds". In the infinite wisdom of some, apparently that is not the case. You may reasonably choose to use different terminology than the companies who use another term.


rw

E-Stat
08-02-2010, 02:37 PM
....
Excellent, we got there in the end, makes one wonder why you disputed Sir T's essential point about greater room interaction due to rear-radiation in the first place.
Such assumes that rear interaction is greater than lateral interaction. I do not agree with that concept with all speaker designs when the point under discussion is precise image location, not bass response.


Read more closely the text is in perfect agreement with what I said previously, Siggy talks about the front of the speaker. In the previous configuration i.e. without the rear tweeter, the backwave comes from the back of the tweeter (and speaker) not the front.
This is getting most tedious.

"The rear tweeter does not contribute to the direct sound coming from the front of the speaker over a very wide angle of +/-60 degrees off-axis"

Translation: the front tweeter's dispersion is completely unaffected by bolting another tweeter directly behind it. Sheesh!

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-02-2010, 02:42 PM
What then did you mean by a "matter of degrees"? What is the variable.


Several factors. Dipolar bass tends to provide smoother in-room response. Since I prefer the resolution and coherency of a single virtually massless driver, I choose what is available.


With respect to side wall interaction due to lateral dispersion, no.


The concept should be clear to those who understand the meaning of the word. The sound of the arrow was steered from right front to left rear. I really couldn't care less how the effect was achieved. Home theater uses that precise placement to good effect.


I speak of the English language, not limited to mixing jargon.


If it were universal, then everyone would use the term. Some do. Many, however, like THX, NAD, Onkyo, Sony, Pioneer, McIntosh, Krell (and likely a host of others) do not. This is a great example of where there can be more than one term for the same concept. I find that the word "rear" more closely associated with "back" than to "surrounds". In the infinite wisdom of some, apparently that is not the case. You may reasonably choose to use different terminology than the companies who use another term.


rw

Okay, I give up. The posturing is making me sick. E-stat, just tell eveyone you don't like to be wrong and get it over with. Wait, you already have.....

theaudiohobby
08-02-2010, 03:04 PM
Such assumes that rear interaction is greater than lateral interaction. I do not agree with that concept with all speaker designs when the point under discussion is precise image location, not bass response.
Sigh....trying to muddy the waters, eh...

"The rear tweeter does not contribute to the direct sound coming from the front of the speaker over a very wide angle of +/-60 degrees off-axis"

Translation: the front tweeter's dispersion is completely unaffected by bolting another tweeter directly behind it. Sheesh! So you....wonder why anyone would consider that a tweeter's frontal dispersion over an angle of +/-60 degrees off-axis would be modified by the addition of a rear tweeter in the first place, you are labouring an issue that was never under contention.

Feanor
08-02-2010, 03:16 PM
Okay, I give up. The posturing is making me sick. E-stat, just tell eveyone you don't like to be wrong and get it over with. Wait, you already have.....
So you two do agree on something. :biggrin5:

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-02-2010, 04:26 PM
So you two do agree on something. :biggrin5:

I outta........LOLOL :prrr:

E-Stat
08-02-2010, 04:54 PM
Okay, I give up. The posturing is making me sick. E-stat, just tell eveyone you don't like to be wrong and get it over with. Wait, you already have.....
Perhaps you should embark on a crusade to correct all the manufacturers who don't use the term "rear". Is that why you replaced your Onkyo? Have fun! :)

rw

E-Stat
08-02-2010, 04:57 PM
wonder why anyone would consider that a tweeter's frontal dispersion over an angle of +/-60 degrees off-axis would be modified by the addition of a rear tweeter in the first place, you are labouring an issue that was never under contention.
Exactly! Narrow dispersion planars have greatly lower effect with side wall interaction than do wide dispersion domes. That's why an Orion's side wall interaction is different than that of a Quad. You've got it!

rw

E-Stat
08-02-2010, 05:13 PM
So you two do agree on something. :biggrin5:
And this all started because I observed that all dipoles do not interact with rooms in exactly the same way. :)

rw

theaudiohobby
08-02-2010, 05:57 PM
And this all started because I observed that all dipoles do not interact with rooms in exactly the same way. :)

rw

Kudos for the strawman :)

E-Stat
08-02-2010, 06:05 PM
Hey Ralph, any thoughts on Bozak speakers? Are they truly the cats azz? I have never heard any...
My memory is quite distant with the last audition being about forty years ago. They were big sounding, but were not particularly extended at the top nor could they create much of a holographic image. Part of those observations could be because of the McIntosh gear used with them.

rw

Pat D
08-02-2010, 06:23 PM
Kudos for the strawman :)

He was arguing about something about which no one disagreed!

theaudiohobby
08-02-2010, 06:43 PM
He was arguing about something about which no one disagreed!correct :yesnod:

theaudiohobby
08-02-2010, 06:53 PM
Exactly! Narrow dispersion planars have greatly lower effect with side wall interaction than do wide dispersion domes.That's why an Orion's side wall interaction is different than that of a Quad. You've got it!

rwYou are now waffling....a few posts ago, it was unanimously agreed that lateral boundary interaction was dependent on speaker configuration therefore your new commentary brings nothing new to the table.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-02-2010, 06:58 PM
Perhaps you should embark on a crusade to correct all the manufacturers who don't use the term "rear". Is that why you replaced your Onkyo? Have fun! :)

rw

Call the dog in, the trail is cold and the hunt is over. Senseless catty remarks are the hallmark of one that has no where to hide.

This thread has pretty much run its course, and I think everyone is pretty clear of what is really happening here. The level of transparency is pretty staggering.:rolleyes5:

E-Stat
08-03-2010, 04:52 AM
He was arguing about something about which no one disagreed!
When discussing the dispersion characteristics of a dome tweeter vs. a Quad, I posed this question to TAH:

Using the same speakers for comparison, which one do you think will sound closer at say 45 degrees off axis as compared with its on axis response- the Orion or the Quad?

His answer?

Difficult without looking at the design or polar plot, it may well have lower room interaction as it narrower design therefore dipole cancellation starts higher up. secondly the tweeter and woofer are placed in waveguides.

So, he needs to look at a polar plot in order to figure out for himself that a dome tweeter has far wider dispersion characteristics than a Quad? Do you face that same challenge deciding the answer having owned both a Quad and now a speaker with a dome tweeter?

rw

E-Stat
08-03-2010, 04:59 AM
Call the dog in, the trail is cold and the hunt is over.
Indeed. I didn't expect you to acknowledge the facts.

rw

Pat D
08-03-2010, 07:47 PM
When discussing the dispersion characteristics of a dome tweeter vs. a Quad, I posed this question to TAH:

Using the same speakers for comparison, which one do you think will sound closer at say 45 degrees off axis as compared with its on axis response- the Orion or the Quad?

His answer?

Difficult without looking at the design or polar plot, it may well have lower room interaction as it narrower design therefore dipole cancellation starts higher up. secondly the tweeter and woofer are placed in waveguides.

So, he needs to look at a polar plot in order to figure out for himself that a dome tweeter has far wider dispersion characteristics than a Quad? Do you face that same challenge deciding the answer having owned both a Quad and now a speaker with a dome tweeter?

rw

You can't be serious! GUAB

E-Stat
08-04-2010, 05:14 AM
You can't be serious! GUAB
That was my reaction to his response as well. GUAB?

rw

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-04-2010, 08:26 AM
Indeed. I didn't expect you to acknowledge the facts.

rw

You haven't presented any. You have stonewalled, been evasive, you have postured, and done everything else but deal with the issue at hand.

Sir Terrence the Terrible
08-04-2010, 08:36 AM
Exactly! Narrow dispersion planars have greatly lower effect with side wall interaction than do wide dispersion domes. That's why an Orion's side wall interaction is different than that of a Quad. You've got it!

rw

Since reflections don't travel in straight lines, what do you think happens to a front wall reflection after it hits the walls?

They spill around the speaker on both sides and over it, so whatever lack of direct interaction the speaker has with the side walls is nullified by the spill over of reflections from the front wall caused by the rearward wave of the speaker. Since a monopolar speaker does not have this characteristic, it therefore interacts with the room less than a dipolar would, and that was my original statement in the first place.

E-Stat
08-04-2010, 09:10 AM
You haven't presented any.
Actually, you just fail to acknowledge them. Which is fine by me. :) Now that everyone (including GUAB) agrees that dome drivers have wider dispersion that flat planars, that observation is no longer questioned. I also pointed out there are quite a few manufacturers who do not agree with your notion of the universal use of the term "rear" when it comes to surround sound. As per your recommendation, it's quite easy to take a look at the back of receivers and processors to determine that. In the space of five minutes I found THX, NAD, Onkyo, Sony, Pioneer, McIntosh, and Krell. There are likely others. Accept that or not - your choice.

What triggered my original comment was a series of observations regarding directivity by Tom Danley of Danley Sound Labs (http://www.danleysoundlabs.com/), a speaker manufacturer of commercial horns. Here are some examples:

Extended nearfield (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=general&n=568136&highlight=directivity+tomservo&r=)

Constant Directivity (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=43012&highlight=directivity+tomservo&r=)

Advantage of large panel speakers (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=42964&highlight=directivity+tomservo&r=)

Reduced Phase shift (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=58165&highlight=directivity+tomservo&r=)

Preserve waveshape (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=34926&highlight=directivity+tomservo&r=)

What can kill imaging (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=53165&highlight=directivity+tomservo&r=)

Larger direct field (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=prophead&n=58467&highlight=directivity+tomservo&r=)

Convey more information (http://db.audioasylum.com/cgi/m.mpl?forum=speakers&n=220143&highlight=directivity+tomservo&r=)

While I likely didn't convey the role of directivity nearly as well as Tom, that has been my point all along. Naturally, there is no consensus among speaker designers as to what works best in all aspects, but I do relate facts.

One decided sensitivity I have is with coherency and the typical use of multi driver solutions. While there are certainly exceptions (and one of Tom's designs might be one of them), I am aware of the different radiation patterns of the different drivers. I was listening to a friend's JBL speaker and was immediately taken with the weird image. Since it ran a 5" midrange beyond the ideal range, its dispersion in the upper midrange / lower high region was significantly narrower than either the woofer below or the dome tweeter above. The image was like that of a carnival mirror, pinched in the middle and wide at the top and bottom. While I'm not suggesting this is the case with every speaker, that is the first thing I noticed - which the owner had never noticed.

You might want to look at Tom's work (via the link) as it is used commercially in places like Turner Stadium in Atlanta. His horn designs are unique in that all the drivers radiate from the same mouth - and thus have the same radiation pattern and directivity one finds with full range speakers. Because the directivity is constant, it readily supports use in any kind of array given its symmetric design. Which, by the way is also true of the Sound Lab electrostat. In my gallery is a large array demonstrated at RMAF by Ray Kimber. Dr. West put together an even larger proof of concept array at a large auditorium in Utah using a 2 x 6 grid of the same 922s used by Kimber. Two tall by six wide. It created a full range constant directivity source measuring about eighteen feet square.

Peace.

rw

E-Stat
08-04-2010, 09:19 AM
They spill around the speaker on both sides and over it, so whatever lack of direct interaction the speaker has with the side walls is nullified by the spill over of reflections from the front wall caused by the rearward wave of the speaker.
We have diffferent views of which spill is more deleterious to the image - an aspect that is both speaker specific and room dependent. There is no one answer for every speaker type and room. That was my point from the outset.

rw