RE: No arguments here...

Posted by Doug Schneider (R) on July 5, 2012 at 14:27:23

In Reply to: No arguments here... posted by David S. on July 5, 2012 at 10:58:44:

Hi,

Looks like we're in agreement here, but I'll add a few things.

It's part "art," but it's not shooting-in-the-dark art like some people think. What's important to understand is that speaker design is a balanced of compromises -- there's no perfect speaker and there are always tradeoffs. It's how a designer balances these tradeoffs that matters.

I won't get into the details of those things here, but I will say that because of this thread it's important to know that diffraction isn't a tradeoff. In other words, one doesn't live with diffraction or not. If there's a reason to live with diffraction, then it's usually due to visual design being put ahead of performance (acoustical design), and then the designer has to deal with that. I've seen that quite a bit, and even talked candidly with designers who admit that happens from time to time. But no designer would put in elements that introduce diffraction because they're trying to achieve something else performance-wise. Now, they might not optimize the speaker like they could (because they don't have the manufacturing wherewithal, or they don't know). But when it comes to a TRUE cost-no-object, high-performance speaker, there is no excuse for diffraction-producing elements to be there.

Doug Schneider
The SoundStage! Network

This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:

Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - Twice the price - Bill the K 05:58:44 07/03/12 (23)

Magnepan 1.7... times 2.4 equals 3.7... times 2.8 equals the 20.7 - Elizabeth 12:03:05 07/04/12 (1)

RE: Magnepan 1.7... times 2.4 equals 3.7... times 2.8 equals the 20.7 - huynguy.enlatoi1988@gmail.com 23:44:01 07/06/12 (0)

Most speakers are poorly designed - badman 13:05:50 07/03/12 (12)

RE: Most speakers are poorly designed - Belgarchi 20:39:13 07/05/12 (1)

RE: Most speakers are poorly designed - Bill the K 04:35:06 07/06/12 (0)

Maybe you place to much importance in diffraction ? - Mike B. 15:43:20 07/03/12 (9)

RE: Maybe you place to much importance in diffraction ? - Doug Schneider 06:36:56 07/04/12 (8)

Well put - badman 09:41:02 07/06/12 (0)

RE: Maybe you place to much importance in diffraction ? - Mike B. 09:39:26 07/04/12 (6)

RE: Maybe you place to much importance in diffraction ? - Inmate51 10:49:09 07/04/12 (5)

RE: Maybe you place to much importance in diffraction ? - Doug Schneider 13:49:41 07/04/12 (4)

So that would pretty much relegate anything by Audio Note to the scrap heap? - David S. 10:10:55 07/05/12 (3)

RE: So that would pretty much relegate anything by Audio Note to the scrap heap? - Doug Schneider 10:47:25 07/05/12 (2)

No arguments here... - David S. 10:58:44 07/05/12 (1)

RE: No arguments here... - Doug Schneider 14:27:23 07/05/12 (0)

Take it for what it's worth. - Presto 12:24:02 07/03/12 (0)

Great point, and I'd chime in that the used market is the great equalizer (of prices). - David S. 11:29:41 07/03/12 (0)

Dali Epicon 6: $14k. Sony SS AR1: $25k - Prisoners 08:14:33 07/03/12 (0)

An unfortunate phrase indeed - John Marks 07:00:15 07/03/12 (2)

RE: An unfortunate phrase indeed - Bill the K 08:46:13 07/03/12 (0)

Yes, unfortunate. - kr4 07:58:22 07/03/12 (0)

RE: Twice the price - lord addleford 06:57:15 07/03/12 (1)

RE: Twice the price - Bill the K 08:19:43 07/03/12 (0)

Follow Ups

RE: No arguments here... - Doug Schneider 14:27:23 07/05/12 (0)

RE: No arguments here...

Post a Message!