In Reply to: RE: Toole's theory posted by KlausR. on October 25, 2010 at 07:29:18:
That's exactly the problem I have. As far as I know, it isn't possible to make a loudspeaker that covers the whole audio range, has smooth on-axis response and good dispersion, and plays cleanly at a level that's adequate to reproduce all performances of un-amplified acoustical instruments at that price. Also, while Toole's criteria are good ones insofar as they go (although as I think he himself points out, it's an open question whether time alignment is necessary to the reproduction of music as opposed to test signals), I don't think they're the only criteria that affect loudspeaker performance. For example, state-of-the-art imaging and soundstage depth are difficult to achieve: arguably only a few esoteric line sources do it, or come close, without compromising maximum output. Similarly, there are issues of non-linear distortion, diaphragm breakup, and room interactions. In the absence of acoustical room treatment, dipoles and cardioids seem to have certain advantages. The upshot is that state-of-the-art reproduction seems to remain the province of large, expensive, and esoteric devices -- ribbons, line sources, large electrostatics, and dynamics that use exotic cone and cabinet materials and construction and servo woofer control. What's more, there doesn't seem to be a loudspeaker, no matter how elaborate or refined, that's state-of-the-art in every respect.
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Toole's theory - josh358 08:29:12 10/25/10 (1)
- RE: it isn't possible to make a loudspeaker ... at that price range - KlausR. 02:34:59 10/26/10 (0)
- RE: it isn't possible to make a loudspeaker ... at that price range - josh358 12:08:02 10/26/10 (0)