In Reply to: Imaging in better planars vs.boxes posted by Satie on June 6, 2015 at 13:30:33:
"The thing that bugs me is why such an expensive and highly engineered speaker needs the most absolutely pure sources and transparent components all through the chain (including interconnects and speaker cables) to finally produce full sized images and render them with precise shape and location outside the speakers, while a good planar line source does it with the most rudimentary equipment."You don't think it's the inherent difference in directionality between the two configurations? There are many variations of either configuration from different designers, but the basic difference/advantage of non-conventional speakers still remain.....IMO.
Anyways, I'm not sure why "imaging" progressed so high on the list of check-boxes that audiophiles seem concerned about for reproduction. It's down low on my list. :)
Dave.
Edits: 06/07/15
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Imaging in better planars vs.boxes - Davey 09:01:31 06/07/15 (2)
- RE: Imaging in better planars vs.boxes - Satie 09:47:26 06/07/15 (1)
- RE: Imaging in better planars vs.boxes - JBen 11:35:56 06/08/15 (0)