[Dan Banquer]

John: I would like to thank you for your honesty in your last couple of posts. The subject of loudspeaker non linearity is one too often ignored.  Just out of curiousity, what role do you think the box has in contributing to the non linearity of loudspeakers?
                   d.b.

[John Ashman]

That's definitely pushing my limits of understanding!  Everything, really, affects linearity if you think about it.  I suppose it depends too on where you define the signal in/out point.  If you say at the binding posts, then definitely everything matters.  That's why a digital speaker will be far more linear than a passive one even though they're not directly affecting the motor structure of the driver.  But for instance, I don't know if the box volume of a sealed speaker creates a more linear output at one volume vs another.  I suspect it does, unless that is more a factor of the motor structure.  I think DSP takes a huge leap forward, but then just shows off what more can be done.

[Dan Banquer]

I guess one of the things that has puzzled me over the years is that drivers are supposed to have this pistonic motion to them. Now when I think about a piston I think about what happens inside an internal combustion engine where the piston is moving in a very precise chamber in a very contolled fashion.  Now when I look inside a loudspeaker and look at the inside of the box I don't exactly get the impression I am looking inside a very precise chamber. Am I missing something here?
Maybe someone could explain that to me.
                       d.b.

[markC]

The pole piece and the vioce coil of the driver would be your piston and cylinder by comparison. They are, (or should be), quite precise. The in/out movement of the voice coil with-in the gap of the pole piece would be where the analogy comes from. At least that's the way that I understand it.

[Dan Banquer]

O.K. so now that we have this driver precisely centered, what happens as the diver starts moving the air inside the box? Remember I'm looking for information on the chamber the driver is put in, and what happens to that driver when it is connected to the chamber.
                     d.b.

[markC]

Well, I suppose your at the mercy of the spider and surround here. As the cone moves air inside the chamber, it is the job of the spider and the surround to hold the voice coil in place within the gap of the pole piece, in theory only allowing reciprocating motion rather than lateral motion.

[Dan Banquer]

O.K. Marc; that sounds like some good theory, but how well does this work out in reality?
              d.b.

[John Ashman]

When they say "pistonic", what they *really* mean is a linear motor and with no cone flex.  Signal in = signal out.

[AndrewH]

John Ashman,

In response to your long post back on page 4, with the list of downsides to 1st order designs, I don't disagree with you at all.  The only point where you go wrong is where you claim time/phase alignment is "subjectively not terribly significant".  While it may not be significant to your ears, it is significant to mine and many other audiophiles.  That's the point of PhaseCoherent.com.

The downsides of first order designs are merely the tradeoffs some audiophiles are willing to put up with in order to have time/phase coherence.  Does it mean they don't appreciate dynamic linearity and high SPL's?  No, it only means that they believe time/phase coherence is *more important* than the limitations they have to put up with.  To some audiophiles, time and phase coherence is subjectively quite significant.

Just because Linkwitz didn't get any response to his challenge doesn't mean nobody is disagreeing with him.  If you read the audibility paper on PhaseCoherent you'll see how I disprove the contention that phase coherence is not audible.  You can read the paper for my methodology.

Now, if nobody argues with me on the PhaseCoherent.com forums does it mean that everybody agrees that time and phase coherence is audible?

[John Ashman]

In response to your long post back on page 4, with the list of downsides to 1st order designs, I don't disagree with you at all. The only point where you go wrong is where you claim time/phase alignment is "subjectively not terribly significant". While it may not be significant to your ears, it is significant to mine and many other audiophiles. That's the point of PhaseCoherent.com.

Honestly, Andrew, I believe the point of PhaseCoherent.com is to make money.  Period.  Sure, it squares with your personal believe system, but it would be like a catholic trying to make money selling his religion.  You've got 10 whole posts on AudioCircle, all of which appear to  be about promoting, directly or indirectly, your site.  Same with AudioAsylum.  Very convenient.  I don't *care* that this is what you're trying to do, but it seems incredibly disingenuous.  Your introduction is basically "hey, I have this website".  Then everyone has to tell you all your mistakes and you have to go back and change your site to remove the errors.  One minute, you're an expert, the next minute, it's like you can't understand why a Magnepan might not be phase coherent.  It's like you took a marketing class or are doing something for "The Apprentice".  It's not very convincing, sorry.  How do you know if a Thiel sounds like it does because it's phase correct?  Have you taken a modified non-phase correct Thiel and compared it?  Or a Vandersteen?  How do you know that a 4th order modified Thiel wouldn't sound *better*?!?  Your naivete  is rather striking at times.  You developed a belief system seemingly out of no where and now you want to preach it, and hopefully make money off it.  You're asking for donations when it maybe costs $20/month to keep a site up and running.  Strangely, I don't see NHT Xd up on your site, even though it's more phase coherent that any of the speakers up there.  Thiels, Meadowlarks, Vandersteens, Horns, etc aren't actually truly phase coherent, sorry.  They all pretty much have at least 360 degrees of phase error.  

Just because Linkwitz didn't get any response to his challenge doesn't mean nobody is disagreeing with him. If you read the audibility paper on PhaseCoherent you'll see how I disprove the contention that phase coherence is not audible. You can read the paper for my methodology.

Really? So your methodology is more scientific than actual professionals in the field?  I'll be surprised when I read that.  You should call Kevin Voecks immediately and explain to him the error of his ways.  And guess what?  You think phase is audible?  Well, distortion and dispersion even more audible.  Why didn't you name your site "poordispersion.com" or "highdistortion.com" or "limiteddynamics.com"?  Not a lot of paying sponsors for that, huh?  

Now, if nobody argues with me on the PhaseCoherent.com forums does it mean that everybody agrees that time and phase coherence is audible?

No, it just means we have better things to do.  I don't go to someone's house to argue with them, I'm not going to your site to argue with you.  But don't let that give you the illusion of being correct.  You really don't know what  you're talking about.  Especially with all those non-phase coherent designs on your website.  Unless you define phase coherent as being "only about 360 degrees out out of phase or less instead of 1000 degrees or so".

[markC]

O.K. Marc; that sounds like some good theory, but how well does this work out in reality?
              d.b.

 

I'm certain that in reality things are less than perfect. That's why there is no speaker that can "perfectly" reproduce what's being fed to it. All we can do for now is except the ones which sound most correct to us.

[Kevin P]

I think it would be helpful for people to be able to compare and decide for themselves what they can hear.   We use LSPCAD pro to design crossovers and it has a very nice feature of allowing you to listen to crossovers on the fly.   You can switch between various crossovers with a click of the mouse and we do so blind during our crossover evaluation process.  

I don't have any philisophical axe to grind.   I just try to build the best sounding system possilbe within the our budget for a given project.   During my testing I'm quite convinced that so called phase coherent designs are not the best.  Even when using drivers with huge areas of linear overlap I almost always prefer the more complex higher order crossover designs.   Now... I don't listen to square waves very often and none of my recordings feature lots of square wave material.   Maybe listening to the square wave is an aquired taste.     Anyway... with complex materials, like music, I'm convinced that phase isn't a factor at the crossover points we use within our systems.   I've certainly found situations where the simpler crossover sounds about as good from a subjective standpoint but I don't know if it has anything to do with the phase performance.

[Kevin P]

Maybe some of the speaker experts can help me here: Why is it that linearity is never discussed when it comes to loudspeakers? I hear a lot of things about imaging, staging, and acoustics but I don't recall people talking about linearity when it comes to loudspeakers.
           d.b.

Good question.   The first attributes (imaging, staging) are subjective attributes used in non-technical discussions.  Linearity is more of a quantitative attribute that is usually talked about in terms of distortion.   Linearity under power is what we hang our hat on for the Adire XBL^2 drivers.    One of the problems are that T/S parameters are low signal level parameters that significantly change with excursion & higher power levels.    How a driver reacts under power in a dynamic situation (playing music) is a much more important attritute than the parameters at 1W.

Two of the best resources for non-linear behavior and more importantly the audibility of a given non-linearity are Dr. Klipple & Dr. Earl Geddes.

http://www.klippel.de/aura/

http://www.gedlee.com/distortion_perception.htm

[AndrewH]

Honestly, Andrew, I believe the point of PhaseCoherent.com is to make money. Period. Sure, it squares with your personal believe system, but it would be like a catholic trying to make money selling his religion. You've got 10 whole posts on AudioCircle, all of which appear to be about promoting, directly or indirectly, your site. Same with AudioAsylum. Very convenient.

Wow, John.  For your information, I've been a registered member of AA since 2000, before AudioCircle was even around.  If you bothered to do a little research before casting your aspersions, you wouldn't look so cynical.

One minute, you're an expert, the next minute, it's like you can't understand why a Magnepan might not be phase coherent.

Please point out where I am "like I can't understand why a Magnepan might not be phase coherent".  When I included their models on PhaseCoherent, it was because their marketing literature talks about first order crossovers and probably makes some noises about phase.  As soon as somebody showed me the Stereophile step response measurements, and informed me that the midrange panel is connected in opposite polarity, I understood and took down Magnepan.  You are the one being disingenuous.

How do you know if a Thiel sounds like it does because it's phase correct?

Are you contending that a Thiel is not phase correct?  Have I offered any opinion about how a Thiel sounds?  PhaseCoherent.com doesn't editorialize about the sound of specific speakers (yet at least).  It only has linked reviews and pullquotes from other audio reviews, such as Stereophile and TAS.  If you disagree with what they say about the sound they hear being attributable to time and phase coherence, then maybe you should be taking up this argument with them.  Don't put words in my mouth.

Have you taken a modified non-phase correct Thiel and compared it? Or a Vandersteen? How do you know that a 4th order modified Thiel wouldn't sound *better*?!?

As soon as you provide me a Thiel to take apart, I'd be happy to perform these experiments for you.

If you bothered to read the audibility paper on my website I mentioned, you would read how I compared listening to a 4th order LR transformed sound file in comparison to an identical version of the sound file with unaltered phase, and how I was able to discern the difference between the two files in a statistically significant manner.  If you want to argue, try to be a little more scientific about it.

You're asking for donations when it maybe costs $20/month to keep a site up and running. Strangely, I don't see NHT Xd up on your site, even though it's more phase coherent that any of the speakers up there.

And my time and labor has no cost?  Are you bitter because I haven't included your precious NHT's yet?  You must think that creating a website merely involves waving a magic wand.  I'm amazed at your consideration and empathy, John.

Thiels, Meadowlarks, Vandersteens, Horns, etc aren't actually truly phase coherent, sorry. They all pretty much have at least 360 degrees of phase error.

Could you back up this assertion with some details?  I know that horn loading alters phase, and I make note of it.  If Thiels, Meadowlarks, and Vandersteens are so bad with regards to phase error as you're implying, why is it they all pass a reasonable facsimile of a step response?

Really? So your methodology is more scientific than actual professionals in the field? I'll be surprised when I read that.

If you have a critique of my methodology, I'd be happy to hear it.  You'll have to read the paper first.

You think phase is audible? Well, distortion and dispersion even more audible.

I don't know what you're arguing about, John.  Have I said that distortion and dispersion are not important?  Are you saying that relative phase differences are not audible?

Why didn't you name your site "poordispersion.com" or "highdistortion.com" or "limiteddynamics.com"? Not a lot of paying sponsors for that, huh?

Um, I named it PhaseCoherent.com because it's about time and phase coherence?  I'm sure there would be even more sponsors willing to pay for the criteria you mention, given that the majority of speakers are not phase coherent.  Feel free to create those websites, John.

No, it just means we have better things to do. I don't go to someone's house to argue with them, I'm not going to your site to argue with you.

It's not like it takes any special effort to post on the PhaseCoherent bulletin board versus posting here, so your assertion that you have better things to do doesn't really hold water.  You're free to argue with me whereever you want, though.

But don't let that give you the illusion of being correct. You really don't know what you're talking about. Especially with all those non-phase coherent designs on your website. Unless you define phase coherent as being "only about 360 degrees out out of phase or less instead of 1000 degrees or so".

I think you misinterpreted my rhetorical question, John.

Do you have any actual facts or data to support your contention that there are speakers listed on PhaseCoherent.com that aren't phase coherent?  I'd be happy to address or include whatever information you are willing to share.  Until then, you're just making baseless accusations.  And not to put too fine a point on it, but you're also being rather rude.

Have a nice day.

[John Ashman]

Wow, John. For your information, I've been a registered member of AA since 2000, before AudioCircle was even around. If you bothered to do a little research before casting your aspersions, you wouldn't look so cynical.

And the entire point of signing up for Audio Circle was to recruit traffic for your website so that you can get advertising revenue, but you paint yourself as purely a "phase coherent" enthusiast.   Forgive me if you made me look and feel cynical.  

Please point out where I am "like I can't understand why a Magnepan might not be phase coherent". When I included their models on PhaseCoherent, it was because their marketing literature talks about first order crossovers and probably makes some noises about phase. As soon as somebody showed me the Stereophile step response measurements, and informed me that the midrange panel is connected in opposite polarity, I understood and took down Magnepan. You are the one being disingenuous.

Andrew, as I've mentioned before, you haven't even *defined* phase coherent.  As far as I can tell, *none* of the speakers you have up there are truly phase coherent for a variety of reasons, so you might want to make a definition of that first.  

Are you contending that a Thiel is not phase correct?

Yep, technically, they aren't.  The passive radiator is not phase/time-aligned.  So, you'll have to loosen the definition of phase correct to include them.  Or define it in the first place.  

As soon as you provide me a Thiel to take apart, I'd be happy to perform these experiments for you.

Well, maybe Thiel will give you some in exchange for your advertisement of them.  

If you bothered to read the audibility paper on my website I mentioned, you would read how I compared listening to a 4th order LR transformed sound file in comparison to an identical version of the sound file with unaltered phase, and how I was able to discern the difference between the two files in a statistically significant manner. If you want to argue, try to be a little more scientific about it.

Unfortunately, that doesn't address all the serious problems with analog passive speakers.  I'm willing to bet you could detect dispersion, distortion and other factors in a statistically significant manner, but you're choosing to ignore them.  It's like saying that you shouldn't wear a motorcycle helmet because it impairs your vision or hearing.  You have to look at *everything* if you don't want to be disingenuous.  

And my time and labor has no cost?

Exactly my point.  You pretend to do this as an enthusiast, but it's really a money making gambit.  At least you're admitting it now.  

Are you bitter because I haven't included your precious NHT's yet? You must think that creating a website merely involves waving a magic wand. I'm amazed at your consideration and empathy, John.

Why should I feel empathy for someone who is doing what they're doing specifically to make money?  And, no, I'm not bitter that the Xds aren't there, just pointing out the fact that one of the few speakers that is even close to being truly phase correct isn't on there, but lots of ones that *say* they are coherent are there.  

Could you back up this assertion with some details?

Nothing that comes from a port or passive radiator is phase coherent.  Therefore, if you are strict about the definition, none of these speakers are phase coherent.  

I know that horn loading alters phase, and I make note of it. If Thiels, Meadowlarks, and Vandersteens are so bad with regards to phase error as you're implying, why is it they all pass a reasonable facsimile of a step response?

"reasonable facsimile"  Again, you haven't made a definition.  

If you have a critique of my methodology, I'd be happy to hear it. You'll have to read the paper first.

Define phase correct in a scientific manner and verify that you're promoting phase correct by that definition and then I might take the time.  You're not giving me any reason to think your paper is very scientific from the website so far!  

I don't know what you're arguing about, John. Have I said that distortion and dispersion are not important? Are you saying that relative phase differences are not audible?

No, I'm saying that you're foolishly promoting *one* aspect of good speaker design, and one of the least important ones at that, above all others, which only adds to confusion and misinformation.  You're not helping people, you're confusing them and misinforming them.  

Um, I named it PhaseCoherent.com because it's about time and phase coherence? I'm sure there would be even more sponsors willing to pay for the criteria you mention, given that the majority of speakers are not phase coherent. Feel free to create those websites, John.

I'm not the one trying to make money.  

It's not like it takes any special effort to post on the PhaseCoherent bulletin board versus posting here, so your assertion that you have better things to do doesn't really hold water. You're free to argue with me whereever you want, though.

Actually, I'd prefer to keep you bottled up where you'll do less damage

Do you have any actual facts or data to support your contention that there are speakers listed on PhaseCoherent.com that aren't phase coherent? I'd be happy to address or include whatever information you are willing to share. Until then, you're just making baseless accusations. And not to put too fine a point on it, but you're also being rather rude.
.

Know how a port works?  Look it up.  Or, better yet, google search "port" and "group delay".  One often seems rude when combating bold-faced misinformation and marketing hype.  Next you'll be promoting Michael Greene's "magic wood"  

[AndrewH]

Forgive me if you made me look and feel cynical.

What's wrong with sharing a new resource that audiophiles could benefit from?  Just because I included a few spaces for ads makes all the information I provide suspect?  If that's the case I hope you don't read Stereophile, The Absolute Sound, SoundStage!, or any other advertiser-supported audio review sources.

Andrew, as I've mentioned before, you haven't even *defined* phase coherent. As far as I can tell, *none* of the speakers you have up there are truly phase coherent for a variety of reasons, so you might want to make a definition of that first.

It's obvious you didn't read the audibility paper I suggested, in which the first sentence states: "A phase coherent, time aligned, transient perfect loudspeaker has been designed to preserve the relative timing and phase of various frequency ranges as the reproduced sound reaches the ear."
http://www.phasecoherent.com/primer1.htm

Is that a good enough definition for you?  If not, why not?  How would you want it to be phrased?

In any case, thanks for a concrete suggestion.  I've been working on collecting step response graphs for all the speakers and I'll make the definition and standard of phase coherence more clear.

Yep, technically, they aren't. The passive radiator is not phase/time-aligned. So, you'll have to loosen the definition of phase correct to include them.

Technically, no speaker is 100% time and phase coherent, meaning having 0 degrees acoustical phase shift in its full bandwidth.  But that doesn't mean that the term "phase coherent" is meaningless.  Some speakers measure up to the theoretical ideal better than others.  My guess is that Quads are near the top of the list.  Yes, ports and passive radiators induce phase shift.  I'll make a note of it on the Thiel pages.

Unfortunately, that doesn't address all the serious problems with analog passive speakers. I'm willing to bet you could detect dispersion, distortion and other factors in a statistically significant manner, but you're choosing to ignore them.

Yes, PhaseCoherent.com emphasizes phase coherence and not dispersion, distortion, and other factors because those other aspects of speaker design are well covered by mainstream audio journalism, and understood by the average audiophile.  Time and phase coherence, on the other hand, is less well understood and is a subject that is often muddled by marketing-speak.  The website is an attempt to clear the air.

Why should I feel empathy for someone who is doing what they're doing specifically to make money?

Again, I'm amazed.  Do you look down upon your cashier at the grocery store?  At restaurants, do you tip your waiter the bare minimum?

And, no, I'm not bitter that the Xds aren't there, just pointing out the fact that one of the few speakers that is even close to being truly phase correct isn't on there, but lots of ones that *say* they are coherent are there.

I'll be adding the Xds soon.  The speakers listed on PhaseCoherent.com so far are simply the ones I've heard of as being phase coherent.  I'm sorry I'm not infinitely knowledgeable about the phase performance of every last loudspeaker on the market.  With time and feedback, I hope to include all the information available.

Define phase correct in a scientific manner and verify that you're promoting phase correct by that definition and then I might take the time. You're not giving me any reason to think your paper is very scientific from the website so far!

The rest of the website is not as scientific as the paper because I was trying to make the website *accessible* to the average audiophile.  Nevertheless, I'm working on wording a definition and devising a standard.

No, I'm saying that you're foolishly promoting *one* aspect of good speaker design, and one of the least important ones at that, above all others, which only adds to confusion and misinformation.

Where do I promote phase coherence *above* all other aspects of good speaker design?  You're misrepresenting my position.

Know how a port works? Look it up. Or, better yet, google search "port" and "group delay". One often seems rude when combating bold-faced misinformation and marketing hype. Next you'll be promoting Michael Greene's "magic wood"

Okay, it appears you're all worked up because some of the speakers listed have a port, passive radiator, or are horn loaded, to augment the last octave or so of their bass response.  I agree a perfectly time and phase coherent speaker would not have such design compromises, and I'll make it more clear how each speaker deviates from the perfect ideal of phase coherency.  Nevertheless I believe speakers that have time and phase coherency as a primary design consideration deserve to be listed on PhaseCoherent.com.

Anything else on the website get your goat?

[John Ashman]

What's wrong with sharing a new resource that audiophiles could benefit from?

It's inherently biased and sets up on design paradigm as inherently superior when that, in fact, is not true.  

Just because I included a few spaces for ads makes all the information I provide suspect? If that's the case I hope you don't read Stereophile, The Absolute Sound, SoundStage!, or any other advertiser-supported audio review sources.

The above magazines review all kinds of speakers, not just phase coherent ones.  If they did that or excluded tube amps or whathaveyou, I wouldn't read them because it would be myopic and 1-dimensional. I stopped reading Widescreen Review because they went from touting nothing but bipolar speakers to nothing but phase correct speakers.  Who knows what the next flavor of the month.

It's obvious you didn't read the audibility paper I suggested, in which the first sentence states: "A phase coherent, time aligned, transient perfect loudspeaker has been designed to preserve the relative timing and phase of various frequency ranges as the reproduced sound reaches the ear."
http://www.phasecoherent.com/primer1.htm

And therefore you need to delete most of the speakers on your list.  

Is that a good enough definition for you? If not, why not? How would you want it to be phrased?

Well, you might want to start by altering the definition so the speakers on your list qualify, such as "in phase throughout the crossover regions" which is not really in phase over the whole range, though that is generally implied anyway.  

Yes, PhaseCoherent.com emphasizes phase coherence and not dispersion, distortion, and other factors because those other aspects of speaker design are well covered by mainstream audio journalism, and understood by the average audiophile. Time and phase coherence, on the other hand, is less well understood and is a subject that is often muddled by marketing-speak. The website is an attempt to clear the air.

The big question is if you will actually list the downsides or whether this is just a rah-rah site.  If you do not, you imply an inherent superiority where none exists.  And that is the opposite of educational or helpful.

Again, I'm amazed. Do you look down upon your cashier at the grocery store? At restaurants, do you tip your waiter the bare minimum?

A waiter doesn't imply that he's doing it just for the love of delivering food or that he just gets all his gratification from helping someone to their food.  

Where do I promote phase coherence *above* all other aspects of good speaker design? You're misrepresenting my position.

Am I?  "Phase coherence in loudspeakers is often under-appreciated, though it is crucial for accurate timbre and sound localization."  So is low distortion, excellent dispersion and other factors.  You imply one path to "accurate timbre" and imaging.  Not true and highly misleading.  

Anything else on the website get your goat?

Not yet, but most of your "upcoming" articles look "goat-getting" from the titles alone.

[AndrewH]

It's inherently biased and sets up on design paradigm as inherently superior when that, in fact, is not true.

Can you show where I "set up a design paradigm as inherently superior"?

The above magazines review all kinds of speakers, not just phase coherent ones. If they did that or excluded tube amps or whathaveyou, I wouldn't read them because it would be myopic and 1-dimensional. I stopped reading Widescreen Review because they went from touting nothing but bipolar speakers to nothing but phase correct speakers. Who knows what the next flavor of the month.

So you're saying you'll read them as long as they don't recommend something you don't agree with.

The big question is if you will actually list the downsides or whether this is just a rah-rah site. If you do not, you imply an inherent superiority where none exists.

I will list the downsides.

"Phase coherence in loudspeakers is often under-appreciated, though it is crucial for accurate timbre and sound localization." So is low distortion, excellent dispersion and other factors. You imply one path to "accurate timbre" and imaging. Not true and highly misleading.

How do I imply that there is only one path to accurate timbre and imaging?  I say phase coherence is crucial.  Crucial means it's important.  Crucial means it's necessary.  But crucial does not mean sufficient.  Do you know the difference between necessary and sufficient?  You're misrepresenting what the quote is saying so that you can denounce your interpretation as being untrue.

Not yet, but most of your "upcoming" articles look "goat-getting" from the titles alone.

Great, so you're judging the website based on articles that haven't been written yet.

[John Ashman]

Can you show where I "set up a design paradigm as inherently superior"?

I already did.  

So you're saying you'll read them as long as they don't recommend something you don't agree with.

No, I'm saying I'll read them as long as they recommend products based on actual quality, not based on preferred design criteria.  

How do I imply that there is only one path to accurate timbre and imaging? I say phase coherence is crucial. Crucial means it's important. Crucial means it's necessary.

Exactly, it implies that quality is not achievable without it.  But you could even more easily say the same for distortion, dispersion, accuracy, etc.  But you don't.  

Great, so you're judging the website based on articles that haven't been written yet.

Hey, you're the one judging speakers based on whether they are "phase coherent" or not.  And I'm judging your judgmentalism.

[dado5]

Some interesting stuff here!

For what it is worth,  I do find a certain quality to the sound of first order speakers that is absent from most other designs I håve heard. Most obviously, the human voice sounds more real....some instruments as well, primarily woodwinds.

Now these units are not without thier subjective downsides. Meadowlark, Thiel, Vandys and Dunlavy/Duntech all have a recessed sound stage that forms well behind the speaker plane giving the music a far away perspective. Other speakers that I have enjoyed using  more conventional crossovers present a more 'in the room' soundstage (Klipsch, Signet, KEF).  Also none of the above mentioned 1st order designs are good at presenting the leading edge (attack) of  instruments well. Piano, guitar, drums and even brass all come off as slow and heavy sounding as a result. And finally the coherent designs just do not have the imaging specificity of many other speakers.

Personally, when I weigh the above weaknesses and strangths, I do like the sound of Meadowlark and Vandersteen speakers in competition with other brands but I am not too crazy about Theil or Dunlavy. Perhaps the 1st order aspect is not the biggest contributor to my enjoying the sound....I don't know as it is all subjective anyway. I honestly can't say if the crossover/driver arangement  is solely responsible for what I am hearing or not.

my.02

Rob