AudioCircle
Audio/Video Gear and Systems => Single Driver, Wide-Bandwidth Speakers => Topic started by: Richard in Idaho on 29 Jul 2011, 02:41 am
-
While on a trip recently I listened to a pair of Klipsch RF-7 IIs. Really liked the sound.
But, I have been reading here and other sites about single driver/wide-bandwith speakes. Omaga/Hoyt-Bedford, Zu, and Tekton mostly..
Other than cost, why would prefer one of these three?
One thing of note. I am 71 and my hearing falls off around 8,400 Hz.
I hope to take a trip to the SLC area soon and check out the Zu and Tekton.
-
Hi Richard: Single, wide range drivers can be an excellent choice, especially for those of us with "older ears." The coherence can be very addicting, as well as the ability of many SD designs to disappear.
The absence of a xover can be quite a revelation.
They offer their own compromises, but the right driver in an appropriate enclosure works for me.
Happy Listening!
don
-
Midrange is king (at any age) and that is where single driver designs shine. As doorman indicates coherency (especially nearfield) is perfect. Imaging (single point source) is ideal. And by default single drivers are "active" (one channel of amplification per driver) which adds dynamics, allows the amplifier to "see" the simplier load easier, and increases depth/volume of bass significantly.
Crossovers may be necessary, but are always evil, especially in the midrange frequencies where the ear is most sensitive to phase mix ups.
If you've read through this circle you'll find no concensus on a definition of a single driver design. The purists say one driver period, but that's hard to find that provide satisfying bass without sacrificing the highs. Some say woofer with tweeter is OK if the tweeeter only has a capacity to protect it (no "real" crossover). Others look towards a smaller driver with a subwoofer added. Etc/etc.
For older ears I'd lean towards larger drivers that can handle more bass better. OTOH smaller drivers "beam" high frequencies less.
The downside of single driver designs is that they don't handle loud/complex types of music as well as muli-driver designs. There is no perfect loudspeaker.
Also search for Planet10 and brinesacoustics.
-
I recently got a pair of John Blue JB3's and a Kingrex T20 amp for my desktop computer setup. It is the first single-driver system I've had that I really enjoy (had a pair of old Zu Tone monitors a while back that never really got my attention, I think Zu's designs back then for the Tone monitor, wasn't quite up to par), and I've been so impressed with it that I am pretty sure I will only own single driver speakers from here on out. The coherence in the midrange that other posters previously mentioned is simply addictive. If you're interested, I suggest you try pairing these two together by finding used ones on Audiogon- the investment isn't that bad, but the sound is really good, and everything single drivers are known for.
-
It is possible that the oft-cited coherence advantage of a single driver has more to do with its relatively benign off-axis response than with its superior phase response.
My understanding is that the ear is relatively insensitive to phase anomalies. Not that they aren't audible, but they are a relatively subtle effect. In contrast, frequency response anomalies are generally a lot more obvious.
Most two-way systems have a pronounced off-axis response glitch in transitioning from the midwoofer (which is beaming) to the dome tweeter (which has a wide pattern). Since most of the sound that reaches our ears in a normal room setup originates with the off-axis response, we hear that glitch, and it's right smack in the crossover region. I believe this response glitch is far more audible than phase shift in the crossover region.
Fullrange drivers do not have that sort of off-axis response discontinuity, so there is no corresponding frequency response glitch for our ears to take notice of. I believe that one subjective effect of this is superior coherence.
-
It is possible that the oft-cited coherence advantage of a single driver has more to do with its relatively benign off-axis response than with its superior phase response.
My understanding is that the ear is relatively insensitive to phase anomalies. Not that they aren't audible, but they are a relatively subtle effect. In contrast, frequency response anomalies are generally a lot more obvious.
Most two-way systems have a pronounced off-axis response glitch in transitioning from the midwoofer (which is beaming) to the dome tweeter (which has a wide pattern). Since most of the sound that reaches our ears in a normal room setup originates with the off-axis response, we hear that glitch, and it's right smack in the crossover region. I believe this response glitch is far more audible than phase shift in the crossover region.
Fullrange drivers do not have that sort of off-axis response discontinuity, so there is no corresponding frequency response glitch for our ears to take notice of. I believe that one subjective effect of this is superior coherence.
Interesting theory. I completely disagree. We are very sensitive to phase anomalies. When a set of speakers exhibits phase differences we get accustomed to the sound. When the phase differences go away, it sounds much better. But it's not only phase that a crossover messes up. The fidelity of the electrical signal is compromised. Send a square wave to a mid/woofer through a crossover and there's no chance that the speaker output will look anything like a square wave. Remove the crossover and a good woofer will output something that resembles a square wave. Phase effects sound localization (imaging) and coherence.
Virtually all mid/woofers start to show off axis response differences around 1 to 2K region. One of the advantages of a multi-driver system is optimise off-axis response. Normally the tweeter will just raise the frequency of this off-axis depression. It's resolution and capability that is the main advantage IMO. Even a 6dB crossover that is phase coherent, is only coherent at the crossover frequency. The rest of the response between drivers is 90 degrees out of phase.
Regards,
neo
-
Interesting theory. I completely disagree. We are very sensitive to phase anomalies. When a set of speakers exhibits phase differences we get accustomed to the sound. When the phase differences go away, it sounds much better. But it's not only phase that a crossover messes up. The fidelity of the electrical signal is compromised. Send a square wave to a mid/woofer through a crossover and there's no chance that the speaker output will look anything like a square wave. Remove the crossover and a good woofer will output something that resembles a square wave. Phase effects sound localization (imaging) and coherence.
Let me quote from page 419 of Floyd Toole's "Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoutics of Loudspeakers and Rooms":
"Many investigators over many years have attempted to determine whether phase shift mattered to sound quality. In every case, it has been shown that, if it is audible, it is a subtle effect, most easily heard through headphones or in an anechoic chamber, using carefully chosen or contrived signals... When it has been audible as a difference, when it is switched in and out, it is not clear that listeners had a preference."
The ear does not hear waveforms as such; rather, it deconstructs the incoming sound into energy at different frequencies. So waveform fidelity is not nearly as important as eyeballing what happens to a square wave would lead one to believe.
On the other hand frequency response (not only of the first-arrival sound but also of the reflections) is a very reliable predictor of perceived sound quality.
-
Virtually all mid/woofers start to show off axis response differences around 1 to 2K region. One of the advantages of a multi-driver system is optimise off-axis response. Normally the tweeter will just raise the frequency of this off-axis depression.
Well, in practice we often get poor off-axis response with a two-way system (though it depends on the designer's priorities). Let me give an example of what I'm talking about.
Here are the Stereophile measurements of a two-way that has an impressively smooth (though somewhat smiley-faced) on-axis response:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/focal-electra-1007-be-loudspeaker-measurements
In particular, look at the lateral off-axis response. See that big energy ridge at 4 kHz? That indicates the frequency response of the reflected energy, and it will strongly influence perceived tonal balance in most listening situations. This anomaly is a result of the radiation pattern discontinuity between midwoofer and tweeter. [I am aware that Stereophile normalizes their off-axis curves, but in this case the on-axis curve is smooth enough that the off-axis data is still fairly easy to interpret correctly.]
On the other hand, take a look at this spec sheet of an 8" fullrange driver, in particular the off-axis response:
http://www.seas.no/images/stories/exotic/pdf_datasheet/x1-08_exotic-f8_datasheet.pdf
It has a few narrow-band jogs, but the overall trend is a gently downward-sloping off-axis response north of 2-3 kHz or so, with no major off-axis peaks like we saw in the first example.
In a situation where the perceived timbre is dominated by the off-axis energy (which I believe is usually the case), this fullrange driver has the advantage.
-
"Midrange is king (at any age) and that is where single driver designs shine."
The above quote is why some people prefer single-driver/wide-band designs.
It really is as simple as that.
And for someone whose upper frequency hearing has greatly diminished and is looking for midrange magic, if well coupled with complimentary amplification, i.e., low-powered tubes, single-driver is a no-brainer, almost.
The trick is finding a really good one, which doesn't always entail the "lower price" part of the equation.
To the original poster apparently in Idaho, if you ever get to the Kalispell, MT area and want to hear some PHY-hp drivers in a true single-driver set up, look me up and you would be welcome to come by and hear my A23 SoloVox speakers.
Cheers,
Mark
-
Investigating phase nonlinearities in phono cartridges I came across an old paper by Ortofon. You can find this at Vinyl Engine. They tested some cartridges for phase anomalies. They found (with listening panels) dramatic differences in imaging capabilities. This was with the same cartridge with different amounts of damping, and with 5 other cartridges with varying degree of phase anomalies. There is a thread in the vinyl section on phase that has examples supporting the case for phase having much greater implications than generally believed by people like Floyd Toole.
http://www.audiocircle.com/index.php?topic=92138.0
There are other examples of a prominent hearing investigator saying that phase is more readily detected than small amplitude differences. In multi driver loudspeakers much of the phase differences between drivers can be overcome with driver placement (time alignment). Of course there are many other problems with crossovers and multi driver systems, like vertical dispersion. It was not my intent to present an argument for crossovers.
Duke,
Your previous post, while being non-representative of the situation, sums up the problem for me. The $830 Seas driver has 13dB difference between response at 400Hz and 17KHz. The plot for off-axis response is even uglier than on-axis. What price single driver? I know there are drivers with more reasonable on-axis freq resp, but with out the whizzer cone they probably have much worse off-axis performance. I think I'd go for the freq resp and aim the speakers at me.
Regards,
neo
-
Your previous post, while being non-representative of the situation, sums up the problem for me. The $830 Seas driver has 13dB difference between response at 400Hz and 17KHz. The plot for off-axis response is even uglier than on-axis. What price single driver? I know there are drivers with more reasonable on-axis freq resp, but with out the whizzer cone they probably have much worse off-axis performance. I think I'd go for the freq resp and aim the speakers at me.
The fullrange driver's off-axis response is a lot better than the two-way's, and my examples highlight the off-axis radiation pattern discontinuity that characterizes many two-way speakers.
The problem with "go for the frequency response and aim the speakers at me" is that, perceptually, the frequency response includes the off-axis energy. Unless you listen nearfield or in a quasi-anechoic room, your ears cannot escape what's happening off-axis. So that off-axis 4 kHz peak is still going to be audible.
On the other hand, listen off-axis of the fullrange driver and you can escape that rising on-axis beam because its relative contribution to the total off-axis energy is small, but probably beneficial.
-
I use EnABL'd Fostex F200A in mass loaded transmission lines, and yes they beam:
http://www.fostexinternational.com/docs/speaker_components/pdf/f200a.pdf
But I listen nearfield (room/setup ala Cardas) and as you say, I can control the frequency response by aiming the speakers. So this discussion seems to validate what I'm listening to, nice. Thanks guys.
-
In talking about listening on-axis and freq resp, I was referring to full range drivers. As a novice to full range speakers, I find the freq resp graphs of many to be a nightmare. I would also contend that the Focal speaker you selected is not necessarily representative of 2-way speakers. Whatever, the Seas full range response looks horrible on or off axis. What's the point of using a full range if the response needs correction? Without active EQ they need passive filters or a zobel.
It seems to me that losing the crossover is indeed the benefit of using a full range. The problem is finding a driver capable of doing it all. Some speaker systems talked about in this circle are not really full range systems. I have a set of speakers that have a woofer with flat response to 4KHz. I can run the woofer w/o any passive filter and use a high pass on the tweeters. I still consider them 2-way speakers even though they would qualify as full range.
It seems to me that something like this might be a more viable candidate. Notice the off axis response starts to diverge around 2K, like I said initially.
http://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/approx-8-fullrange/fostex-fe203en-s-special-8-full-range/
neo
-
It is possible that the oft-cited coherence advantage of a single driver has more to do with its relatively benign off-axis response than with its superior phase response.
Duke - brilliant! I had never thought of that before. Very interesting... I will have to look at some things in the (not too distant, hopefully) future with this in mind.
-
In talking about listening on-axis and freq resp, I was referring to full range drivers. As a novice to full range speakers, I find the freq resp graphs of many to be a nightmare. I would also contend that the Focal speaker you selected is not necessarily representative of 2-way speakers. Whatever, the Seas full range response looks horrible on or off axis. What's the point of using a full range if the response needs correction? Without active EQ they need passive filters or a zobel.
It seems to me that losing the crossover is indeed the benefit of using a full range. The problem is finding a driver capable of doing it all. Some speaker systems talked about in this circle are not really full range systems. I have a set of speakers that have a woofer with flat response to 4KHz. I can run the woofer w/o any passive filter and use a high pass on the tweeters. I still consider them 2-way speakers even though they would qualify as full range.
It seems to me that something like this might be a more viable candidate. Notice the off axis response starts to diverge around 2K, like I said initially.
http://www.madisoundspeakerstore.com/approx-8-fullrange/fostex-fe203en-s-special-8-full-range/
neo
I've had occasion to hear a couple of models of Fostex's "special" series, and they can certainly sound dynamic and musical, although few would argue they're without some degree of "personality" (i.e. coloration). Further, keep the following from Madisound's website in mind:
This artisan driver is a onetime production and Madisound has been allocated 25 pair for the US market. The FE203En-S posses remarkably high sensitivity and is optimized for use in a folded horn enclosure. It is engineered to deliver effortless sound reproduction with a very dynamic character, and do so even with very low input amplitude. The result is a driver that performs exceptionally well from low to high listening levels.
Limit one pair per customer. This driver is a value at $600/pair.
-
In talking about listening on-axis and freq resp, I was referring to full range drivers. As a novice to full range speakers, I find the freq resp graphs of many to be a nightmare.
Yes, but the on-axis response is only a small piece of the puzzle, and because fullrange drivers are inevitably beaming a lot more than a 1" dome would, their nasty graphs are only applicable within a narrow angle. Move off-axis a bit and that on-axis curve is no longer representative of anything that reaches your ears, being now blended in with the off-axis energy, and making only a small contribution thereto.
I would also contend that the Focal speaker you selected is not necessarily representative of 2-way speakers.
The Focals use a stiff woofer cone that behaves closer to a rigid piston than most (which includes beaming more severely), and they also have a fairly flat on-axis response, and so illustrate my point well. Many designers introduce an on-axis dip at the lower end of the tweeter's range to offset the off-axis pattern flare; that is a design choice I would have made.
Whatever, the Seas full range response looks horrible on or off axis.
If you have offsetting peaks and dips in the off-axis energy, the net result sounds a lot better than if you have a big energy ridge. Dips that are not offset are fairly benign. That upper-frequency "hash" doesn't sound nearly has bad as it looks to the eye; the ear tends to "average out" peaks and dips that are within 1/3 octave of one another.
What's the point of using a full range if the response needs correction?
Correction circuitry may offend the purist, but if it's a net improvement, I see nothing wrong wtih using it. My first commercial speaker was an augmented Fostex fullrange driver (augmented by a built-in sub and rear-firing supertweet), and I believe the correction circuitry I used made a significant improvement.
-
I've had occasion to hear a couple of models of Fostex's "special" series, and they can certainly sound dynamic and musical, although few would argue they're without some degree of "personality" (i.e. coloration). Further, keep the following from Madisound's website in mind:
Chrisby,
I was not recommending this driver, just using it as an example of one with more reasonable frequency response.
Regards,
neo
-
Yes, but the on-axis response is only a small piece of the puzzle, and because fullrange drivers are inevitably beaming a lot more than a 1" dome would, their nasty graphs are only applicable within a narrow angle. Move off-axis a bit and that on-axis curve is no longer representative of anything that reaches your ears, being now blended in with the off-axis energy, and making only a small contribution thereto.
The Focals use a stiff woofer cone that behaves closer to a rigid piston than most (which includes beaming more severely), and they also have a fairly flat on-axis response, and so illustrate my point well. Many designers introduce an on-axis dip at the lower end of the tweeter's range to offset the off-axis pattern flare; that is a design choice I would have made.
If you have offsetting peaks and dips in the off-axis energy, the net result sounds a lot better than if you have a big energy ridge. Dips that are not offset are fairly benign. That upper-frequency "hash" doesn't sound nearly has bad as it looks to the eye; the ear tends to "average out" peaks and dips that are within 1/3 octave of one another.
Correction circuitry may offend the purist, but if it's a net improvement, I see nothing wrong wtih using it. My first commercial speaker was an augmented Fostex fullrange driver (augmented by a built-in sub and rear-firing supertweet), and I believe the correction circuitry I used made a significant improvement.
Move back on-axis and ....
Yes, the Focals illustrate your point, but does it necessarily follow that this is an advantage for all examples? The Focals are bright on or off-axis in the 3 to 7KHz region. The Focal woofer has little to do with it. The crossover is at 2K, I don't know the slope. It would seem like the beryllium tweeter is the offending driver. With a crossover at 2K, I think there would be very little, if any woofer output at 4K. This is a hand picked example to illustrate your point, but is it typical?
Many peaks and dips are not offsetting. They tend to coincide. Once again you compare to that "big energy ridge". Is this typical?
Some kind of notch filter or cap/coil to roll off response? Do you think this was an improvement over a well designed multi driver speaker? This sounds like a 2-way with a rear firing tweeter.
I'm playing devil's advocate here because I think your argument uses a hand picked example that is not necessarily representative. It in no way reflects my opinion about your speakers. I don't even know what they are. You make some good points about off-axis response, but I think it would be better if you laid off those Focals. I question the relevance of this comparison.
Regards,
neo
-
This is all very interesting. Not sure on-axis / off-axis is of much importance to the way I listen to music. I seldom set down just to listen. I like to have music in the background while doing other things. Still the music must sound good, be easy to listen to and not be tiring.
At this point I am thinking off the Tekton Lore. Just over $1,000 shipped plus any wood veneer over paint.
-
This is all very interesting. Not sure on-axis / off-axis is of much importance to the way I listen to music. I seldom set down just to listen. I like to have music in the background while doing other things. Still the music must sound good, be easy to listen to and not be tiring.
At this point I am thinking off the Tekton Lore. Just over $1,000 shipped plus any wood veneer over paint.
If you listen from a wide range of locations, a fairly uniform radiation pattern is an advantage because that way the tonal balance will vary less from one location to another.
-
I'm playing devil's advocate here because I think your argument uses a hand picked example that is not necessarily representative.
Not "representative" of what? Of course it's not exactly like every other two-way speaker, but it does illustrate an issue that most have, which is not obvious from their on-axis curves. Would you rather I use an example that is not as clear?
If you wish to dispute the principle I described in my first post in this thread, you might want to formulate an argument and/or come up with some counter-examples.
-
The Lore (with a large "main" driver) should be good for older ears and the tweeter should help provide a wide dispersion of full range sound.
Check out the Audio Circle thread on the Lore.
-
Duke,
After thinking about this a bit, you are probably right about off-axis freq resp vs phase as a predictor of sound quality. Phase isn't usually considered unless there's a gross anomaly like a suck out. With multi driver speakers even if the phase difference is compensated there will usually be a difference between what happens at the crossover region and the rest of the band of the driver(s). It's not so easy to correlate with perceived sound quality.
The ear does not hear waveforms as such; rather, it deconstructs the incoming sound into energy at different frequencies. So waveform fidelity is not nearly as important as eyeballing what happens to a square wave would lead one to believe.
This depends on what you consider important. Square waves are very good predictors of fidelity. This is true in electronics and in speakers. For instance, waveform fidelity usually shows the difference between a dynamic driver and a full range electrostatic. Differences can be dramatic.
Regards,
neo
-
Square waves are very good predictors of fidelity.
Only if the system is intended to be linear phase. Otherwise, the question comes back audibility of phase shift. Doing something as Linkwitz suggests (but digitally to make it easy to implement) would be interesting: http://www.linkwitzlab.com/phs-dist.htm
-
Interesting link, pardon the pun. I wonder if audibility results would be similar if the freq were 1K rather than 100Hz. Would doing this digitally have the same effect as putting the signal through discreet components?
Square waves reveal more than phase angle though. Things like rise time, slew rate, overshoot can be readily observed.
neo
-
After thinking about this a bit, you are probably right about off-axis freq resp vs phase as a predictor of sound quality. Phase isn't usually considered unless there's a gross anomaly like a suck out. With multi driver speakers even if the phase difference is compensated there will usually be a difference between what happens at the crossover region and the rest of the band of the driver(s). It's not so easy to correlate with perceived sound quality.
This depends on what you consider important. Square waves are very good predictors of fidelity. This is true in electronics and in speakers. For instance, waveform fidelity usually shows the difference between a dynamic driver and a full range electrostatic. Differences can be dramatic.
Fair enough.
I don't share your opinion on the perceptual significance of square wave reproduction in loudspeakers (for reasons stated earlier), but do concede that it is an impressive feat of engineering for a speaker to reproduce a recognizeable square wave.
-
I wonder if audibility results would be similar if the freq were 1K rather than 100Hz.
Only one way to find out! I suspect that 1K will be less audible than 100 Hz (assuming either are) but have not done the experiment. The question would however be easier to answer with digital as it's a matter of changing a few parameters rather than de/resoldering components.
Would doing this digitally have the same effect as putting the signal through discreet components?
I would think so. Except at the frequency extremes, digital filters are fairly close to their analog counterparts. The comparison would be simply turning the allpass filter on and off, so everything else will be the same.
-
Midrange is king (at any age) and that is where single driver designs shine. As doorman indicates coherency (especially nearfield) is perfect. Imaging (single point source) is ideal. And by default single drivers are "active" (one channel of amplification per driver) which adds dynamics, allows the amplifier to "see" the simplier load easier, and increases depth/volume of bass significantly.
Crossovers may be necessary, but are always evil, especially in the midrange frequencies where the ear is most sensitive to phase mix ups.
If you've read through this circle you'll find no concensus on a definition of a single driver design. The purists say one driver period, but that's hard to find that provide satisfying bass without sacrificing the highs. Some say woofer with tweeter is OK if the tweeeter only has a capacity to protect it (no "real" crossover). Others look towards a smaller driver with a subwoofer added. Etc/etc.
For older ears I'd lean towards larger drivers that can handle more bass better. OTOH smaller drivers "beam" high frequencies less.
The downside of single driver designs is that they don't handle loud/complex types of music as well as muli-driver designs. There is no perfect loudspeaker.
Also search for Planet10 and brinesacoustics.
I bought my first pair of speakers in 30 years a few months ago. Spent a fair amount of time on this board doing some research. After considering the severe room restrictions I have, I felt at the time I bought, that I was basically punting the decision. Now I'm sure I did the right thing. And the above post accurately describes the benefits of the little monitors I bought.
(http://www.audiocircle.com/image.php?id=50019)
-
Thanks for posting Mike.
I can't quite tell what brand/model those speakers are, could you tell us more?
TIA
-
Thanks for posting Mike.
I can't quite tell what brand/model those speakers are, could you tell us more?
TIA
Clark Blumenstein "Orca" - Fostex FE83E in nice little BB birch plywood boxes - he also will do in Bamboo
very musical
http://www.blumenstein-ultra-fi.com/index.php?page=orca (http://www.blumenstein-ultra-fi.com/index.php?page=orca)
-
Clark Blumenstein "Orca" - Fostex FE83E in nice little BB birch plywood boxes - he also will do in Bamboo
very musical
http://www.blumenstein-ultra-fi.com/index.php?page=orca (http://www.blumenstein-ultra-fi.com/index.php?page=orca)
Hi Chris,
Clark gave a demo at our Audio Club last month. He brought his Naga speakers with subs and complete Bottlehead system. Looked and sounded great!
Hope to see you this weekend!
Best regards,
TerryO
-
Thanks for the link. Too small for my taste.
-
Thanks for the link. Too small for my taste.
well then the Oninyanma might be more to your liking (line of credit permitting :thumb:)
(http://www.blumenstein-ultra-fi.com/uploads/images/Gallery/oniyanma/4.jpg)
these I didn't (and at $14,7000 /pr maybe don't want to) hear
Count Olsonovavich, have you heard the little 85WK after their measles attack?
-
Chris, now you're picking on me. :oops:
I'm just a simple farm raised boy who could never bring himself to spend that kind of money on speakers (unless they came with a car or a super model). :lol:
-
Chris, now you're picking on me. :oops:
I'm just a simple farm raised boy who could never bring himself to spend that kind of money on speakers (unless they came with a car or a super model). :lol:
true enough - I didn't pay much more than that for my new little Ranger last summer - but that's still less than the sales tax on some of the silly expense ego-gear out there
-
well then the Oninyanma might be more to your liking (line of credit permitting :thumb:)
(http://www.blumenstein-ultra-fi.com/uploads/images/Gallery/oniyanma/4.jpg)
these I didn't (and at $14,7000 /pr maybe don't want to) hear
Count Olsonovavich, have you heard the little 85WK after their measles attack?
The 85? No, Clark's Nagas were sans measles when he brought them to the meeting. They did sound pretty good, all the same.
I'd really like to hear a pair of his Oninyanma speakers!
Chris, when are you heading up the Mountain? Dave R and I plan to be there Thursday afternoon.
BTW: There's no reason to be so formal, just call me Terry.
Best Regards,
TerryO
-
For those interested, both Clark's little speakers (Orca and Naga) use the FE83E (that could change) I don't think he'd had an opportunity to hear the new FF85WK until July 16th at Bud's place.
-
As the OP thought I would post as to what I have ordered.
After reading and more reading and considering value for the money I ordered a pair of Salk Songbirds in custom veneer. Will post in the Salk circle after I get them. I want to tank every one that responded.
-
I recently purchased the HoytBedford type 1's. A single 8 inch driver in a beautiful wood enclosure, 48 to 18,000 freq.response, & 97 db rating. I've had many speakers in the past decades (I'm 50 yrs young) and they all had multiple drivers. The sound that radiates from a pair of qualitly single source speakers is amazing- the soundstage & depth is unmatched. Jazz & opera are life like in my living room.
-
I recently purchased the HoytBedford type 1's. A single 8 inch driver in a beautiful wood enclosure, 48 to 18,000 freq.response, & 97 db rating. I've had many speakers in the past decades (I'm 50 yrs young) and they all had multiple drivers. The sound that radiates from a pair of qualitly single source speakers is amazing- the soundstage & depth is unmatched. Jazz & opera are life like in my living room.
Welcome to the fold!
-
I recently purchased the HoytBedford type 1's. A single 8 inch driver in a beautiful wood enclosure, 48 to 18,000 freq.response, & 97 db rating. I've had many speakers in the past decades (I'm 50 yrs young) and they all had multiple drivers. The sound that radiates from a pair of qualitly single source speakers is amazing- the soundstage & depth is unmatched. Jazz & opera are life like in my living room.
yup, for a lot of us, a good wideband system matched to our rooms / listening habits does so many things so well that its inevitable deficiencies can easily be overlooked
-
yup, for a lot of us, a good wideband system matched to our rooms / listening habits does so many things so well that its inevitable deficiencies can easily be overlooked
Yep!
Not always perfect, but often perfectly wonderful!
Best Regards,
TerryO
-
There's no such thing as the perfect speaker.
Pick your medicine (and which laws of physics you're trying to ignore).
-
There's no such thing as the perfect speaker.
Pick your medicine (and which laws of physics you're trying to ignore).
Gee, Ive never heard that before. Thank you for your contribution.
-
I recently came across Tannoys on youtube. Are they considered a single ? They appear to have just one driver from the front- The Westminster & a few others by Tannoy. Look very expensive by the way. I have never heard them in person.
-
The Tannoy Dual Concentric™ (their tradename) drivers have been produced since 1948 and are a low frequency driver with a coaxially mounted high frequency driver connected by a passive crossover. So not a single crossover-less wide-bandwith driver, but more a single point source.
Here is a very nice article about the history of Tannoy and the Westminister speakers from Positive Feedback:
http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue49/tannoy.htm (http://www.positive-feedback.com/Issue49/tannoy.htm)
Steve
-
Steve:
For those us DIYers at risk of orthopedic damage from patting ourselves on the back over our accomplishments, a thorough read of this article can be very humbling
-
Steve, quite an article there. Never new how much goes on inside that speaker. The skill & craftsmanship is amazing. Maybe someday I'll get to listen to them. thanks for the link.
-
I was blown away by the sound of Tannoy Definition DC8T. So natural and realistic, easy with very low coloration. With Linn's top electronics it was just awesome. But not single driver. There is a bass driver under the coax, making it a 3way with 1st order filters.
-
I was blown away by the sound of Tannoy Definition DC8T. So natural and realistic, easy with very low coloration.
I had bought a pair of those, hopefully to satisfy craving for a Tannoy. They didn't last long. One of these days a set of old 10s will come across my lab... fingers crossed
dave
-
I had bought a pair of those, hopefully to satisfy craving for a Tannoy. They didn't last long. One of these days a set of old 10s will come across my lab... fingers crossed
Cool... What didn't you like about the 8? The Tannoy importer told me that the 8 sounds a little cleaner than the 10, but I've never heard the 10. Thanks Dave
-
Dave, I think I just saw a Tannoy 10 incher on Agon.
-
Cool... What didn't you like about the 8? The Tannoy importer told me that the 8 sounds a little cleaner than the 10, but I've never heard the 10.
Flat sounding, listless, not very good DDR.
dave
-
Dave, I think I just saw a Tannoy 10 incher on Agon.
That would only take some money....
dave
-
Flat sounding, listless, not very good DDR.
dave
Certainly for one thing, the impression of quality of enclosure design and build was that it came from a completely different company than that associated with the Dual Concentrics. There are certainly far worse sounding speakers around, but for my taste this particular model had nothing to distinguish them from the budget models by B&W, Paradigm, Magnepan and whatever else was on the showroom floor.
-
Let me quote from page 419 of Floyd Toole's "Sound Reproduction: The Acoustics and Psychoacoutics of Loudspeakers and Rooms":
"Many investigators over many years have attempted to determine whether phase shift mattered to sound quality. In every case, it has been shown that, if it is audible, it is a subtle effect, most easily heard through headphones or in an anechoic chamber, using carefully chosen or contrived signals... When it has been audible as a difference, when it is switched in and out, it is not clear that listeners had a preference."
The ear does not hear waveforms as such; rather, it deconstructs the incoming sound into energy at different frequencies. So waveform fidelity is not nearly as important as eyeballing what happens to a square wave would lead one to believe.
On the other hand frequency response (not only of the first-arrival sound but also of the reflections) is a very reliable predictor of perceived sound quality.
"On the other hand frequency response (not only of the first-arrival sound but also of the reflections) is a very reliable predictor of perceived sound quality."
This is the same conclusion I came to 22 years ago.That is why I re-engineered all of my loudspeaker systems. The reflected sound from all of them have much flatter response at the point where the listener sits. BTW this is why speaker's like Revel Salon Ultima had a rear firing tweeter, something Toole's successors removed in the subsequent version after he retired. The ultimate challenge...turning Bose 901 into a very high accuracy speaker. Knowing exactly what had to be done, it still took me four years to get the results I wanted. Hard to believe? I expect nobody who is familiar with these speakers would say that is possible.
-
For me it's the definition, hearing those little things buried in the mix. I listen to FE206's ; a light cone and a lot of motor. It seems like it can follow and react to the signal more accurately. Greater BL and less MM for it's SD, is that the right tech-speak ?