Welcome! Need support, you got it. Or share your ideas and experiences.
Return to Planar Speaker Asylum
104.200.154.102
In Reply to: RE: Some Info on DEQX and Maggies posted by Satie on June 05, 2016 at 00:03:03
I can tell you that the imaging on the Kyron was very impressive -- good enough that I made a note about its great imaging (my senile brain being what it is these days, I jotted down some of the high points so I could report back). But it's hard to compare it to other time-aligned systems, given variable show conditions, recordings, speaker placement, etc. I don't remember being blown away by detail, but that is presumably a function of the dynamnic drivers rather than the DEQX.
I did notice, consistently, that dipoles made the best images. They were pretty much the only images in which I had a real sense of localization. Many of the dynamics put the images all over the place -- up, down, sideways. Of course there wre a lot of crap recordings, I asked them to play an orchestral recording when I could but in many cases that wasn't possible and I had to listen to awful multimiked recordings with a singer about 80 dB louder than Caruso.
Seems to me I had a discussion with Helmholz about his measurement techniques a couple of years ago, you might be able to find it here. Stuffing the room might be adequate for higher frequencies, but it wouldn't get the low. In fact, IIRC, Alan Langford said that even an anechoic chamber can be inadequate for this purpose, since they aren't anechoic at low frequencies. And unfortunately gated measurements don't really work.
I was pleased overall with the sound of the Kyron but of course show conditions don't really allow one to hear the system at its best. It seemed promising (except for the price tag). By and large, I was impressed by the point source dipoles, they really did almost as well as the line sources in conveying a sense of space. But more later, have to leave for the show.
Follow Ups:
I guess that leaves you with just the option of taking the speaker out to the driveway on a clear day without wind and measuring there. Perhaps at the open garage door with the backwave facing out.
I too never found point sources to image as well as the line sources So once I heard my firt Tympani speaker in 1982 it confirmed my suspicion from hearing the CLS earlier that something is fundamentally wrong with point source speakers. I presumed it was the multiple drivers in a 3 way not being time aligned and theory from the brit hifi press that it relates to crossover order not preserving phase. So I went with a vandersteen 2C when I had the chance and it did a great job on imaging but for a somewhat random height distribution for instruments from the general plane of the orchestra. It also lacked detail relative to what I remembered from the CLS and Quad 57.
Then I discovered Apogees and that told me that it is the drivers and the line source geometry. They were nearly as resolving as the ESLs and had all the imaging characteristics of the Tympani I heard before just with obviously more detail. I could not imagine why anyone who could afford them would prefer taking an expensive box home. Nothing else produced that kind of realistic imaging and holographic soundstage and still reveal so much detail. Not the big Vandersteens in the same room, not the Thiels at the competing dealer, not the B&W (which compared badly to the Thiels because the B&W were not time aligned)
I was actually impressed by the imaging of the point source dipoles I heard at Newport. Not the equal of a line source, no, but significantly better than almost all of the boxes I heard. The boxes did depth and spread, yes, but for the most part they didn't give the palpable "it's out there" imaging that the dipoles did. Of course, this was under show conditions.
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: