"If you don't have a $200k [speaker]..."
- Thread starter Gregadd
- Start date
Yes, Lee.
Wilson Audio always referred coherently since long to "Time Alignment" with the same meaning that some authors, reviewers and internet sites use - phase at the crossover frequency - "The step decay of each module blends in together in a way that preserves time coherency according to John."
Some people here target their arrows at successful magazines and successful manufacturers . I always preferred to understand and discuss things from a technical perspective, understanding the origins and traditions of the audio semantics.
And sorry, IMO the important aspects in this discussion are David WIlson design and technical/subjective aims and understanding their implementation, not John Atkison semantics.
You’ve dodged ALL technical discussion and questions in this thread…what you say is false…you pretend to start a technical discussion but once you are contradicted you hide behind semantics from Wilson and JA.
I asked you direct questions around time alignment and coherence but, as usual, you dodge and weave. You appeal to authority rather show technical evidence. People who don’t understand a thing often fall back onto appeals to authority like you often do.
You asked a childish question : "please define". It is like asking someone to define "sugar " in a Coca Cola / Pepsi debate. John Atkinson and other people already had addressed the subject clearly, what was the point of typing paragraphs to please you in such a simple question? And sorry, providing references and quotes of respected authorities on basic subjects is common place is such matters.
The point JA is making is that the sounds do reach your ear at the same time and that the combination of 2nd order and mechanical alignment is quite effective.
Again with the obsfuscation! And your analogy is very poor. It is not at all like defining sugar in Coca Cola/ Pepsi debate.
It is like Coca Cola saying they use sugar in their drink and Pepsi saying they use sugar in their drink but Pepsi actually uses saccharine instead of sugar, but they say "Well we call that sugar here at Pepsi". Then the taste testing company also says, "Yep, Pepsi is right and we call it sugar as well". Then someone points out that Saccharine and Sugar are actually different molecules and then you say, "Well the Pepsi says its sugar and this taste tester says it's sugar, so who cares if it is chemically different...it's sugar!!" Then I, as a chemist, point out to you that they are different and you fire back, "But Pepsi and the taste tester company said their the same...so they must be!" . When I ask you to prove they are the same molecules, you say "don't bother me with this childish question!"...a dodge if ever there was one.
You can thank me for fixing your analogy.
I am going to go with John’s word on this given his recognized work in audio measurement. I also believe he has less of an agenda than you do.
Ok, I see your point. You love spending your time in useless argumentation that is not relevant to audio matters being discussed. Feel free to go on with your personnel fights.
No, just wanted you to see what a real analogy looks like since you obviously can't construct one yourself.
Who brought up the Coke/Pepsi crap analogy??? It wasn't me...and it was your way of avoiding my direct questions... deflect much? I am coming around to the conclusion that you are a strange kind of troll.
An article on the subject that may be useful in this discussion.
Time & Phase Alignment: Inside Two Principal Concepts Of System Optimization - ProSoundWeb
They're related but different and have specific applications. It’s important to know which form to use to get your answers for a given application.www.prosoundweb.com
I am of the belief that crossover and mechanically aligned baffle/driver design cannot be separated when it comes to achieving a speaker that creates a wavefront that mimics live acoustic instruments in time and space.
The issue I have always had is no speaker can mimic the radiation patterns of real instruments. They are all different.
Rob
Attachments
Again the direct questions? BTW, you are the one trolling a successful manufacturer and a magazine editor - it is the third time you raise this issue in WBF.
It's not trolling when it's the truth. It's clearly visible in the impulse response graphs, and as I said before... what's interesting to me is that some people really like that crossover solution and some do not. There are always tradeoffs. Wilson clearly prefers frequency domain integration. Thiel and Vandersteen prefer time domain integration. The long driver integration tails that come along with 1st over crossovers present their own challenges. It's ok to tackle the problem in different ways.
No, I am pointing out an obvious discrepancy between claims and data. My problem is not time alignment or not, it is the claim when it is demonstrably false. My problem with Stereophile is that they are creating their own terms that only serve to confuse the reader who is not technically educated and that they used the term rather unambiguously in the past and now they use the same term they used in the past for something quite different and introduced a new term (time coincidence) that is actually synonymous with the old terms (time aligned or time coherent) if you actually think about it.
That has been fully debated and explained many times before ... Are you going to raise the question again next month or just in October?
BTW, if people look in the net they will be even more confused - there are many different definitions of time alignment. And in the end most people will tell us it is not relevant ...
Similar threads
- Sticky
