|
Audio Asylum Thread Printer Get a view of an entire thread on one page |
For Sale Ads |
166.89.86.119
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
did you mention vandersteen?
i'm specifically a fan of sealed and acoustic suspension speakers, but also put time aligned drivers high on my priority list. i still wouldn't mind owning a pair of infinity modulus 5 1/2" 2 ways with emit tweeters circa 1992 or so. those were my idea of "the ideal speakers" for the longest time as infinity was the brand that got me into hifo to begin with when i heard a pair of their 4 1/2" 2 ways with polycell tweeters and was amazed by the bass CLARITY and speed they had compared to slower and boomier sounding full sized speakers.
back when they were still sealed, i lusted after wilson watt puppys for being sealed and time aligned.
i really liked the sound i heard from a pair of magnepan MG12s once on a tube amp, but haven't like the sound of larger maggies that can have either an aluminum foil pinging sound or an even more annoying gritty sound like the last pair i auditioned that made dark side of the moon's vocals sound unbearable.
so for now, i have my heart set on getting a pair of KEF LS50 2 ways as they have solid cabinets with nicely radiused front baffles and 5 1/4" coaxial drivers that should image like crazy. they're class A rated by stereophile and "only" $1,500 a pair. once the ports are plugged, they should be able to easily beat all of the speakers i've bought to try and have NHT superzero imaging and lack of resonance sound but with higher resolution, but sadly, energy RC10, mission M71 and celestion ditton 100 all have annoying box resonances that the KEFs shouldn't.
every review i've read for LS50s has been favorable. i've never been a fan of the brand as they almost exclusively make ported speakers, even bandpass *cringe*, but if they provide port plugs for them, then they should offer the sealed mini sound i'm after with even higher resolution and lower cabinet resonance than i've been able to find so far.
that copper color is kind of fugly, but you can't have everything.
BTW... B&W stopped time aligning it's tweeters on it's 800 series. i guess they value dispersion/lack of diffraction over time alignment these days.
If it's ported, it's distorted.
Follow Ups:
d
Edits: 05/31/15 05/31/15 07/06/15
My understanding is that it is relatively simple to time align speakers by either steping back the midrange from the bass speakers then stepping back the treble from the midrange or achieved by a properly designed crossover electrically doing the same thing. Phase coherency is harder to achieve and is realized at a particular distance from the speakers. Not quite a "head in a vice" distance but limited nonetheless.
?
Warmest
Tim Bailey
Skeptical Measurer & Audio Scrounger
The crossover appears to be 2nd order acoustic, but they put the WOOFER in negative polarity and not the tweeter. This gives in *initial* positive going impulse response.
I now wonder about this "putting the woofer negative instead of the tweeter" for 2nd order designs requiring a polarity flip...
I wonder how this would play out sonically...
HMMMMM.
Copper color will grow on you. I have WMTMW's with Vifa MG10MD0908 fiberglass-cone mids and they are quite an ugly yellow color. You get used to it.
Cheers,
Presto
Assuming that one is able to detect mixed polarity in a multi-driver array, how would the entirety of the signal be perceived if only the initial "attack" phase of the signal is unified in polarity?
That is the question of the hour.
But since it's just the antithesis of the "2nd order with inverted tweeter" it *may* only be an absolute polarity discussion.
Or, due to the way we perceived sound, may not be.
I'm just asking the questions here because although I understand the theory (to an extent, with some practical experience) my own "jury is still out" on the entire subject of absolute polarity.
Even a 'transient accurate' 4th order compared to a "phase mangled" 4th order (with 4th order group delay) is not a "day/night" sonic scenario as many want to believe. I've listen to both scenarios *through the exact same speakers* with nothing else changing but the group delay correction. After doing many "on/off" comparisons, I gotta say... after believing it to be a panacea when I got into the subject, I now believe for some it may not be a big deal and for others it's not a concern at all.
To this day I still wonder to what extent my mind is telling me I hear better sound when I am visualizing the measured response in my head.
That near-perfect parallax impulse with almost zero over-shoot...
Mentally, these images are very powerful for audiophiles, especially someone who takes measurements and makes corollary with the sound. The human brain seeking corollary and explanation can often be as much of a hindrance as it is a help.
Cheers,
Presto
It is said that the initial attack of a sound is the thing that helps us to identify it's true character or nature. The proponents of time-coherent loudspeakers seem to believe that, unless all drivers are polarity matched, the leading edges or the "attack" phase of sound becomes smeared. This, in turn, is said to create a loss of natural sounding detail among other things.
Could it be that KEF was simply trying to create a happy compromise between amplitude response, good dispersion characteristics, and time coherency in the LS50 by using the method described by you above?
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: