|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
65.8.37.153
In Reply to: RE: Now they are the newest model Triangle Antal. posted by russ69 on March 24, 2015 at 15:15:33
Not really ,For the rating system to truly work products should drop out of class-a into class-B as time and improvements march on , the fact it doesnt or rarely does is the problem and IMO makes the class-A list obsolete ...
Limited bandwidth speakers should not be in consideration for any kind of class-A Ranking .
Regards
Edits: 03/28/15 03/28/15Follow Ups:
I think the best speakers have limited bandwidth. Deep bass is a different conversation. There's no reason for deep bass to be coming from the same place as the rest of the frequency range. The considerations are different.
Imagine how boring the internet would be if folks were as civil here as they are in person.
Never did understand why Stereophile ranks full-range speakers separately, given that those who want to go full range can add a sub. In fact there is a very good reason why bass *shouldn't* come from the same place -- the best woofer location is seldom the same as the best location for the rest of the frequency range.
While sperate bass ( below90hz) is best served in a different location , no added on subwoofer setup will match a complex and fully developed full range system, most will require a serious effort to make the integration work ...
IMO Limited bandwidth speakers cannot recreate SOTA performamce levels , so they should never have Class-A status anyway...
Regards
Well, I agree that sub integration requires effort and I would add measurements -- you *can* do it without, but I don't think most of us have the patience and skill to get it right by ear. But I'm not so sure about the best subs not matching the bass of the best full-range system. Maybe some critics would weigh in here, since they have heard more recent Class A speakers under good conditions than I have! However, if anything, the design and installation requirements for subwoofers are so different than those of full-range speakers that I'd expect separate subs to have the advantage in most cases.
For one thing, even with trapping, state-of-the-art bass reproduction benefits heavily from level adjustment and DSP. Practically-sized listening rooms are too acoustically varied and modal at bass frequencies for a "one size fits all" passive approach to work, and design finesse doesn't do much good when you have modal nulls, Allison effect, modal response swings, and time smear from ringing.
Also, high power Class D amplification is ideally suited for low frequency reproduction, but still too flawed in the high end for full-range use.
Subwoofer manufacturers can also use servo woofers to reduce distortion to manageable levels, and high slope active crossovers to keep woofer colorations out of the midrange.
Then there's the critical role played by positioning. I don't think I've ever set up speakers in which the bass and higher frequencies were best at the same point. Depending on circumstance, you can also try techniques such as swarmnig, active or passive plane wave arrays or putting the subs near the listening area so that response aberrations are minimum phase and can be fixed with equalization (something I've only read about but would love to try).
And then for those who want to go whole hog there are esoteric technologies such as the rotary woofer (which could also be used with a full range speaker) and infinite baffle installations.
Another consideration is that a woofer requires a large cabinet, which will tend to impair the imaging and power response of a full-range dynamic.
Also, while I agree that full-range response is required of a state-of-the-art *system,* I don't think that the same is true of a state-of-the-art *component.* Since subwoofers have long been common, putting the woofer in the same cabinet as the other drivers seems to me to make no more sense than putting a preamp in the same cabinet as a power amp.
I would go so far to say that it's *impossible* for speakers positioned for best mids/highs to also be optimally positioned for best bass. [Edit: unless you're sitting in the very near-field.]Following on from that, when next I change my speakers, I will not even consider their lower bass performance, and will only require it to be "good enough" so that integration with subs (yes "s") will be as seamless as possible. This is very easy to do these days, what with the measuring tools, then adjusting to taste (or burn yourself in, like your gear, until it sounds "better").
Edits: 04/11/15
LOL, love the bit about burning yourself in -- I've done that many times myself. But seriously, I think that's a really good idea.
Wasn't a $4k modular system from NHT in full-range Class A?
I think the T6's were in class A but despite the 2 12" woofers in each one they weren't considered full-range. I don't put too much stock in Stereophile's ability to separate full-range from limited because they sometimes put speakers that I know aren't really full range in the full-range category. The Revel Studio 2, for example, is in the 2014 full-range list even though it's -3db point is 32 hz. This is the exact same -3db point as the Thiel 3.7's listed in A (Restricted Extreme LF). The NHT's were specified to be down 3db at 26hz. Stereophile measured the Sony SS-AR1 to be -6db at 32hz yet they still still classified it as full-range. I think this is fairly subjective classification that shouldn't be taken too seriously.
Imagine how boring the internet would be if folks were as civil here as they are in person.
Post a Followup:
FAQ |
Post a Message! |
Forgot Password? |
|
||||||||||||||
|
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors: