|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
207.167.13.69
In Reply to: RE: POLL: How many of you use(or would prefer to use) "time-coincident" speakers? posted by genungo on September 04, 2014 at 08:36:45
I have experimental / prototype WMTMW 3-way speakers that use computer based FIR and IIR crossovers. The IIR crossover is "phase correctable" with a 'forward-reverse' type phase processing. (This results in a latency delay, meaning that I can't use the speakers in this mode for video unless special equipment is used to delay (re-synch) the video.I have measured not just the output of the crossover, but the acoustic output of the system, and indeed, I get phase-coherent (transient accurate) reproduction.
The nicest part of this is that the phase correction component can be quickly and simply switched off - push of a button.
In my honest opinion - I don't think T.A. performance is a deal breaker for me. I also think that people who swear by TA speakers might be liking something ELSE about the speaker... it's possible. They believe they like the speaker because it's TA. I think people can like a speaker because it's blue and someone said blue speakers sound better. Yes, gasp gasp, some will vehemently disagree. But I can switch back and forth between measurable TA and non-TA performance and for me, there are quite a number of metrics I would not sacrifice just to get TA performance.
That said, in my case, I leave it on out of principle because, well, why add phase distortion if you don't need to.
I am willing to admit I am "doing it wrong" or "not doing it best", but my measurements tell me that I am doing it right so I have no reason to think I've done it wrong.
I just don't think that BY ITSELF it's a vital necessity for engaging and enjoyable sound. If anything, I think a 1st order acoustic passive design that is TA might just have too many (40+?) components and suck certain aspects out of the music trying to get too many impedance, phase and amplitude response anomalies corrected to achieve the 1st order acoustic response. People who like crossoverless mids and caps on tweeters might agree with me here.
Some might say my system is doomed because it uses DSP-based crossovers. To that I say: You surely may be right. In fact, everybody may be right - I have a rare belief about audio now. I believe everybody is correct when they say something about audio based on what they like.
I like TA 1st order acoustic designs. They sound better.
I like full-rangers with supertweets. They sound better.
I like horns with flea amps. They sound better.
I like panels because they are inherently TA. They sound better.
I like DSP or outboard/active crossover solutions. The sound better.
I like blue speakers they sound better.All guys are correct if they've put the time into their systems and listened to them.
There is no panacea.
Did you enjoy putting your system together?
Do you listen to lots of music and do you gets lost of goose bumps?
Do you rush to the audio room when you get home from work?If you said yes to these questions, your system is awesome FOR YOU whether it is TA or not, has low bass or not, has "good" lobing tilt or power response or not.
That's my philosophy these days, which is why I seldom argue on here anymore.
Cheers,
Presto
Edits: 09/04/14Follow Ups:
Much wisdom, here.
.
My Reference 3A Grand Veenas are both in phase and time aligned. I discovered the advantages of such designs after I bought a pair of Dunlavy SC IVs after owning a several well regarded speakers. Now I wouldnt own anything else.
.
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: