Follow Ups Full Thread

Topic - Does a loudspeaker's time coherence matter ? - bunni 17:36:31 02/22/07 (104)

• Nice Cast :-0 - Bare 19:12:33 02/23/07 (0)
• Icing on the cake - Schu 15:20:02 02/23/07 (2)
• Re: Icing on the cake - mauimusicman 16:45:41 02/23/07 (1)
• Thanks - Schu 06:49:20 02/24/07 (0)
• Re: Does a loudspeaker's time coherence matter ? - mauimusicman 13:48:49 02/23/07 (0)
• Time-aligned or phase coherent speakers sound better in careful, blind lab tests. - jsm 13:38:34 02/23/07 (0)
• Yes. They especially sound better in near-field positions at modest volumes. - Richard BassNut Greene 09:21:40 02/23/07 (6)
• Re: Yes. They especially sound better in near-field positions at modest volumes. - mauimusicman 11:58:17 02/24/07 (0)
• Probably the best answer so far (NT) - dlr 15:35:42 02/23/07 (0)
• That seems counterintuitive. - kavakidd 12:41:45 02/23/07 (1)
• Make that at least 6 feet away (near-field) for three-way or four-way speakers - Richard BassNut Greene 11:18:10 02/25/07 (0)
• Evidence? (nt) - Jim Austin 11:56:24 02/23/07 (1)
• Two decades of trying to find speakers that worked well near-field in my room - Richard BassNut Greene 11:29:15 02/25/07 (0)
• Does a sources time coherence matter. - gymwear5@hotmail.com 07:22:22 02/23/07 (2)
• Re: Does a sources time coherence matter. - mauimusicman 12:48:39 02/28/07 (0)
• Re: Does a sources time coherence matter. - mauimusicman 13:51:11 02/23/07 (0)
• Depends on where you're sitting (or standing) - Baroque Obama 07:20:52 02/23/07 (1)
• Re: Depends on where you're sitting (or standing) - mauimusicman 12:52:12 02/28/07 (0)
• The most important question may be... - Jim Austin 04:44:02 02/23/07 (22)
• Re: The most important question may be... - mauimusicman 01:06:32 02/24/07 (4)
• Re: The most important question may be... - Jim Austin 05:59:56 02/24/07 (3)
• Re: The most important question may be... - mauimusicman 02:05:45 02/25/07 (1)
• Good description - dlr 06:53:20 02/25/07 (0)
• If more people could talk to each other like these two do.. - Craiger56 09:26:54 02/24/07 (0)
• Re: The most important question may be... - dlr 18:01:13 02/23/07 (4)
• Re: The most important question may be... - Jim Austin 18:34:16 02/23/07 (3)
• And that means absolutely nothing (NT) - dlr 18:58:53 02/23/07 (2)
• To you. (NT) - Jim Austin 19:02:38 02/23/07 (1)
• No, with the physics - dlr 20:16:36 02/23/07 (0)
• Re: The most important question may be... - morricab 08:01:59 02/23/07 (6)
• Not Sure - ka7niq 16:51:53 02/23/07 (1)
• Re: Not Sure - morricab 03:53:18 02/25/07 (0)
• Not necessarily by any means (nt) - suits_me 14:40:54 02/23/07 (2)
• Re: Not necessarily by any means (nt) - morricab 03:54:26 02/25/07 (1)
• Re: Not necessarily by any means - suits_me 14:19:34 02/25/07 (0)
• Yes, I think so. - Jim Austin 08:03:59 02/23/07 (0)
• Powered speakers - edta 05:52:29 02/23/07 (4)
• Re: Powered speakers - Jim Austin 06:13:40 02/23/07 (3)
• P.S. - Jim Austin 06:28:30 02/23/07 (2)
• Re: P.S. - mauimusicman 13:01:12 02/28/07 (0)
• Impressive. Thanks. nt. - edta 13:17:48 02/23/07 (0)
• Re: Does a loudspeaker's time coherence matter ? - nickg.va 03:47:55 02/23/07 (0)
• Re: Does a loudspeaker's time coherence matter ? - plantsman 03:10:24 02/23/07 (2)
• Re: Does a loudspeaker's time coherence matter ? - Duke 11:43:12 02/23/07 (1)
• Re: Does a loudspeaker's time coherence matter ? - plantsman 04:56:34 02/26/07 (0)
• Most time/phase alignment claims are without merit. - sser2 23:26:04 02/22/07 (5)
• Not necessarily - dlr 15:30:30 02/23/07 (4)
• Theory and common sense. - sser2 18:06:21 02/24/07 (3)
• Re: Theory and common sense. - dlr 08:19:13 02/25/07 (2)
• Coaxials and phase - Tom Brennan 08:41:43 02/25/07 (1)
• Re: Coaxials and phase - dlr 08:56:06 02/25/07 (0)
• Thoughts... - Brian Walsh 23:22:03 02/22/07 (25)
• Re: Thoughts... - Tom Brennan 05:33:28 02/23/07 (21)
• Never heard one of those - E-Stat 08:32:23 02/23/07 (20)
• Re: Never heard one of those - stuck.wilson@gmail.com 10:43:37 02/23/07 (13)
• I have no anti-utilitarian bias - E-Stat 11:57:53 02/23/07 (12)
• Re: I have no anti-utilitarian bias - stuck.wilson@gmail.com 12:39:11 02/23/07 (11)
• Re: I have no anti-utilitarian bias - mauimusicman 14:14:33 02/23/07 (7)
• Re: I have no anti-utilitarian bias - Tom Brennan 15:27:00 02/23/07 (6)
• Re: I have no anti-utilitarian bias - mauimusicman 13:07:02 02/28/07 (0)
• Re: I have no anti-utilitarian bias - mauimusicman 16:51:56 02/23/07 (4)
• Re: I have no anti-utilitarian bias - Tom Brennan 17:08:08 02/23/07 (3)
• Re: I have no anti-utilitarian bias - mauimusicman 19:13:19 02/23/07 (1)
• Re: I have no anti-utilitarian bias - Ben P 21:32:04 02/23/07 (0)
• His designs are most intruiging - E-Stat 18:22:58 02/23/07 (0)
• My analogy remains - E-Stat 13:54:06 02/23/07 (2)
• no- a lack of good exemplars stands. - stuck.wilson@gmail.com 14:55:35 02/23/07 (1)
• You seem to obsess about drivers - E-Stat 15:35:58 02/23/07 (0)
• Re: Never heard one of those - Tom Brennan 08:47:06 02/23/07 (5)
• The term professional simply means used for work or hire - E-Stat 09:12:53 02/23/07 (4)
• Re: The term professional simply means used for work or hire - Tom Brennan 09:40:21 02/23/07 (3)
• You have it bass ackwards, Tom - E-Stat 11:38:58 02/23/07 (2)
• Re: You have it bass ackwards, Tom - Tom Brennan 12:40:41 02/23/07 (1)
• Which explains the diversity of opinions - E-Stat 13:30:37 02/23/07 (0)
• Re: Thoughts... - Donald North 23:36:36 02/22/07 (2)
• Re: Thoughts... - Terry 09:30:03 02/23/07 (1)
• Re: Thoughts... - Donald North 15:48:12 02/23/07 (0)
• Ordinary? - Quiet Earth 22:06:38 02/22/07 (0)
• I wouldn't worry about it. - Pat D 20:40:16 02/22/07 (2)
• Well said and may I add........ - kenster 00:09:02 02/23/07 (1)
• Amen - Robert C. Lang 00:23:38 02/23/07 (0)
• Re: Does a loudspeaker's time coherence matter ? - Donald North 18:57:10 02/22/07 (0)
• Re: Does a loudspeaker's time coherence matter ? - mamboni 18:55:44 02/22/07 (0)
• Re: Does a loudspeaker's time coherence matter ? - Tom Brennan 18:51:48 02/22/07 (0)
• Time coherence... - mkuller 17:48:43 02/22/07 (0)
• Absolutely. Just ask Richard Vadndersteen or Jim Thiel - nighteyes0 17:47:05 02/22/07 (18)
• Impossible for new Thiels to be phase coherent - Ben P 21:24:13 02/22/07 (14)
• Retraction - Ben P 03:41:48 02/27/07 (0)
• Re: Impossible for new Thiels to be phase coherent - Charles Hansen 19:19:05 02/23/07 (0)
• Re: Impossible for new Thiels to be phase coherent - Ben P 01:27:31 02/24/07 (0)
• Re: Impossible for new Thiels to be phase coherent - Tom Brennan 21:34:43 02/22/07 (10)
• Re: Impossible for new Thiels to be phase coherent - Ben P 21:43:48 02/22/07 (9)
• Correction - Ben P 22:19:22 02/22/07 (8)
• It's evident that you have no idea what you're talking about - dlr 15:22:07 02/23/07 (7)
• Example please? - Ben P 20:16:12 02/23/07 (6)
• Re: Example please? - dlr 07:33:56 02/24/07 (5)
• Re: Example please? - Ben P 20:26:20 02/24/07 (4)
• Re: Example please? - dlr 06:24:18 02/25/07 (3)
• Re: Example please? - Ben P 00:30:05 02/26/07 (2)
• Re: Example please? - dlr 15:11:07 02/26/07 (1)
• Re: Example please? - Ben P 03:27:01 02/27/07 (0)
• For an unbiased answer - ask people who sell them! (nt) - andy_c 20:12:20 02/22/07 (0)
• Re: Absolutely. Just ask Richard Vadndersteen or Jim Thiel - Doublej 18:11:27 02/22/07 (1)
• Correction Thiels are good looking speakers... - nighteyes0 18:39:07 02/22/07 (0)

Follow Ups

• To you. (NT) - Jim Austin 19:02:38 02/23/07 (1)
• No, with the physics - dlr 20:16:36 02/23/07 (0)