Interesting. Can you elaborate on this subject? As far as I see it, most of the time the digital is converted by a DAC and the cutter is analog driven.
AUDIO ELEMENT FIFTH ANNIVERSARY CELEBRATION
- Thread starter Ron Resnick
- Start date
Interesting. Can you elaborate on this subject? As far as I see it, most of the time the digital is converted by a DAC and the cutter is analog driven.
Where did I say All digital recordings sound bad on vinyl? Personally, I don’t see any reason to acquire a digital recording on vinyl, you might as we’ll get it on digital...and call it a day. Not saying they all sound terrible on vinyl, but compared to great analog recordings on vinyl...
Ron, nice reporting. Thanks for sharing and including the photographs.
Davey, One reason to have a digital recording on vinyl might be because one likes the music but does not own a digital player. Ron and I have such incomplete systems.
If this recording happens to be a bit tough, I don't understand why anyone would use it to assess an audio system or particular piece of gear. If the recording is bright, how would one be able to zero in on a cartridge instead of any of the other many possibilities? I understand that the Lyra range is quite varied, and I have heard the Atlas SL sound very natural with beautiful rich, warm tone and body. In a new and unfamiliar system, I would be a bit hesitant to assume a cartridge, which may or may not even be broken in yet, is responsible for a particular sonic attribute. Perhaps the DAW tweeters need some breaking in. Who knows?
Ron, did you listen to the same recording with the other turntable, arm, cartridge combination? If you had, it might have been easier to identify what was causing the brightness.
Wilson speakers are measured as being not time coherent though.....so I'm not sure what you mean when you say measurable.
I'm sure that moving the drivers relative to one another will make things sound different, I wouldn't ever argue against that. That doesn't mean the speaker is actually time coherent though
I agree that listening isn't the same as measuring. However, we can measure coherence in time. The impact of time coherence is where the listening comes in.
I imagine the Daws are coherent sounding, as many speakers are. I've heard many Wilsons, and they don't sound particularly disjointed. But, to my knowledge, they aren't time coherent.
Wilson, like every company, has their marketing terms, and they seem to be eyeing time coherence as a feature of their speakers. I don't see how it's actually possible though. And again, they've been measured to be not coherent in time.
I'm just wondering how they can say they are, and people back them up, when the speakers are obviously not.
I have never considered this subject in depth and do not know how to interpret such graphs, but John Atkinson says in the Allex review:
Footnote 1: Following the review's publication, I reexamined the step responses of the 2 midrange units and have posted them here. You can see that while the output of the lower midrange unit is in positive acoustic polarity, that of the upper midrange unit is in negative polarity. However, in fig.4, it can be seen that the step response of the upper midrange unit still blends smoothly with the step responses of the tweeter and lower midrange unit to give a time-coherent output.
Read more at https://www.stereophile.com/content...-loudspeaker-measurements#CZsPzGjLBvE5LomG.99
First, one must define time coherent. In an overly simplistic description, a given signal captured at the microphone in a given instant should reach the listener's ear in precisely the same relationships as when it was captured.
A feature? Dave's early experiments with time began in the 60's. His first patent on the subject came in the early 80's for the original WAMM. It has been the defining thread throughout the company's history.
FYI, it wasn't until after the turn of the century that peer reviewed papers confirmed that what Dave had been chasing for decades was audible by the average person. More sensitive people heard significantly smaller interval differences. The change I suggested you make on DAW when listening is less than 10 microseconds, an interval that more than half of people, even those who do not see how it is possible, should be able to hear according to studies.
Time coherence, in my view, would be that the signal from the speaker leaves the speaker plane as one signal. So, the signal from the tweeter, midrange and bass, all leave the speaker at the same time and are in the same plane, so that when they arrive at a certain point, they arrive as one signal.
I liken it to three people singing the same thing, but one the upper, mid, and low. If they are all standing next to one another, and they are not singing in unison, then whatever they are singing will not be coherent in time, even though it may still sound amazing. I know it's a very simple way to look at speaker driver output, but it is similar. Most drivers are singing the same song, but at different times. No matter how you stagger the drivers, if they aren't starting and stopping at the same time, they won't be time coherent.
I am no speaker designer and don't claim to be incredibly knowledgeable when it comes to crossover design. However, based on my time talking to Richard Vandersteen, and reading information from speaker designers who design specifically for time and phase coherence, I fail to see how a speaker with drivers that start and stop at different times, and who's output does not arrive at any position at the same time because they don't leave one plane at the same time, can be considered time coherent. Unless by time coherent, we mean something different than is meant by time coherence of speakers like Thiel, Vandersteen, Meadwolark Audio, Green Mountain Audio, etc.
I think what Dave referred to as time coherence, is not what I, or some others would refer to as time coherence. Many speaker designers talk about how their speakers are time coherent, but the vast majority are not. Wilsons at least look like they're time coherent, as the acoustic centers can be aligned. Howver, for most part, their drivers do not move in and out in unison.
How can a speaker be time coherent, when the drivers don't move as one?
I'm really not trying to argue, and I apologize if I sound argumentative. But I do not see how time coherence is possible, given the crossovers and wiring.
I am not great at interpreting the graphs either. However, I do believe that a speaker that is time coherent would have a different step response than the Alexx.
They usually look like this
I'm not sure how the Alex is time coherent, but has this step response.
John Atkinson has been measuring speakers for decades and even gave seminars on how to interpret the measurements - sorry, in doubt I will take his words !
You make many assumptions. Until arrival becomes the focus for time correctness, we will have to agree to disagree.
As an aside, the WAMM can be calibrated in arrival time to compensate for the group delay of the gear driving it.
John Atkinson has been measuring speakers for decades and even gave seminars on how to interpret the measurements - sorry, in doubt I will take his words !
That's fine, as I didn't ask for your particular acceptance of what I was saying. I've only posed a question that no one , including you, has been able to answer.
I would also take his word over my own. But I take his measurements over his word. His measurements (and words) show a speaker that is not time coherent. The same goes for every Wilson speaker measurement that I've seen.
You are correct. Dave has always referred to the arrival time at the listener (adjusted in time for the listener's position in the room) based on the input signal to the speaker.
You keep falling back to electrical, not acoustic continuity and using phase interchangeably with time. Not the same thing in either case.
What assumptions have I made? Arrival is the focus of time coherence........but more importantly, in my opinion, when the signal leaves the speaker plane is the focus of time coherence.
The signal from the drivers of a Wilson speaker (every Wilson Speaker), neither leaves the speaker plane intact, nor arrives at the ears intact (how could they if they didn't leave in a time coherent fashion?). So if the signals from the drivers don't align in time at the output, and they don't align in time at the listening position.....what are we talking about when we're talking about time coherence?
I am not at all mixing phase and time. I'm saying that two drives that are out of phase with one another, cannot be time coherent.
And yes, Dave talked about the signal arriving at the listening position, but the measurements show that they do not arrive at the listening position coherently in time. The high order crossovers also prevent time coherency.
There is evidence that the speakers are not time coherent........not just based on listening. So how are people arguing that they aren't? I don't understand this. Is it just because Wilson says their time coherent, so they must be?
Peter, that is exactly one of my points to Ron, how can you ascribe what he did to the cartridge, given what you correctly pointed out. To then state that all Lyra’s have this type of issue, except the Etna SL, makes no sense to me.
As to the digital file vs the digitally recorded LP, I guess I rarely see much value in acquiring a digitally recorded LP, as I own a digital set up and i can acquire the digital file easily.
Having said that about the digital file, I am certainly NOT saying that there are no very worthy digitally recorded LP’s on the market; the long out of print and absolutely amazing sounding MFSL Alison Krause and Union Station Live is one that immediately comes to mind. Although I do think this is truly the exception vs the rule.
@metaphacts - you are obviously closely associated with Wilson, and perhaps you are an employee, so let me ask the same question: how can two out-of-phase drivers be time coherent?
Similar threads
