Quote Originally Posted by Florian
You seem to be on a rampage. Well, i personally wouldnt talk about integration, center image etc..if i where you.
Well why not, my system seems to excel in these areas, why wouldn't I talk about it? It does so even with a huge television sitting in between it.




Fact of the matter is that a large TV will mess up the time arivals, introduce distortion, vibration and unwanted reflections.
Yes, that is probably true if the speakers where sitting behind the television. However. almost everyone that is into HT knows that the speakers should be in front of any televsision. Mine sit approximately 1.5ft in front of my display. I would rather have the reflections which are relatively easy to deal with as I use sound absorbers to deal with them. Reflections at lower frequencies have a longer integration time, higher frequency reflections which effect imaging is taken care of by very thick damping foam.

However with speakers in the absence of television in between, especially the ones you like allow room resonances ans strong to flourish, as there is nothing to break them up. A setup with no television in between require vast amounts of acoustical foam at least 4" thick to tame late and early arriving reflection to the listening seat. Neither has a benefit over the other, each has to have some control at high frequencies.


Subsoowfer integration with box speakers might not be a problem since they are colored and resonant from the beginning.
Not all box speakers are colored and resonant, just like not all ribbon or electrostatic speakers have linearity , frequency response, and time arrival problems. You are making a global statement on specific items.


But you will have a mighty problem with speakers that lack this ability. May they be electrostatic, planar magnetic or ribbon. Time delay erros, phase shifting etc...
If yiou were talking to someone stupid, they may actually believe you. However I know better, there is no one speaker design that trumps another unless you have strong biases (which mean a narrow mind) or you are uneducated in the area of speaker design.


The exact same thing has been said to me many times, just because i do not agree with the masses. And as faith will have it, we see the same with Bernd who is also way up the ladder of 2 channel reproduction. Tis critics come from the general masses with the typical general masses knowledge and equipment.
Florian, you know for a fact that I am not as stupid and gullible as those folks that are impressed by you. Just because I am in the MC camp doesn't mean I agree with the masses. My equipment choices lean towards custom, not mass marketed items. That especially pertains to my choice of speakers and subwoofers. Anyone who understands that history of audio knows that 2 channel is a compromise to conventional audio wisdom, and not a benefit to it. Anyone who has read bell labs 1932 study knows that it takes at LEAST three channels up front to map a soundstage. Two channel was developed because of limitations of the technology at the time. That time is over. Now because of MC, when can fully realize at least the minimum benefits of that study, which is something the two channel can never live up to.

Your biases are well noted, but they are not necessarily educated or knowledgeable biases. I respect your choices of planar, ribbon or electrostatic speakers. They however are not my cup of tea as they are too limited in what they can do over a wide variety of uses.