0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic. Read 11014 times.
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.
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?
O.K. Marc; that sounds like some good theory, but how well does this work out in reality? d.b.
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.
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.
One minute, you're an expert, the next minute, it's like you can't understand why a Magnepan might not be phase coherent.
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*?!?
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.
Really? So your methodology is more scientific than actual professionals in the field? I'll be surprised when I read that.
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?
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".
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.
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.
Are you contending that a Thiel is not phase correct?
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.
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.
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?
If you have a critique of my methodology, I'd be happy to hear it. You'll have to read the paper first.
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?
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.
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.
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. .
Forgive me if you made me look and feel cynical.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.
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"
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.
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?
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.
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?
Where do I promote phase coherence *above* all other aspects of good speaker design? You're misrepresenting my position.
Anything else on the website get your goat?
It's inherently biased and sets up on design paradigm as inherently superior when that, in fact, is not true.
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.
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.
"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.
Not yet, but most of your "upcoming" articles look "goat-getting" from the titles alone.
Can you show where I "set up a design paradigm as inherently superior"?
So you're saying you'll read them as long as they don't recommend something you don't agree with.
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.
Great, so you're judging the website based on articles that haven't been written yet.
