MM7's are here

Thanks Champ04 and Rbert

I hesitated to address the issue , the thread being about MikeL's MM7. I don't know the particular of the MM7 , I dont know if they're first order crossovers. I honestly have my doubt about them being first-order, First order sensitivity tends to be much lower but I am wildly speculating I could be wrong perhaps the manufacturer or importer could chime in. I don't see mention of such in their website So I don't know and if indeed they are it is likely better to have them close to the mains at the same distance to the listeners ...

Now about some of A. Wayne claims that do need to be addressed:

Crossovers are electrical beast thus youhave to time aligned there first ... You must electrically aligned the drivers else you will not have a time-aligned speaker. Digital system can do a much better job than analog which are for the most parts crude approximation of filter equations which are mathematical functions. Fact not opinion. Saying DSP is a band-aid is too broad a generalization. Implementation varies and people may like the results or not . People like bass in their cars so much it rattles other people windows .. Preferences. DSP is a very valid solution for the problem and in theory is superior to analog at least in the way the mathematical functions is implemented ...

The ESL 57 is a panel speaker. I don't know about its phase or time alignment. I know about the incredible impulse response of the ESL-63, another panel speaker, still your argument about the time smear and other things about panel speakers does not hold too much weight unless it is an opinion in which case you are free to have it . I would like however to see facts.

Now it could be true that time aligned speakers are better. I don't know . I have heard speakers that are not time aligned among them the Alexandria X-2 and it does what you describe extremely well and the IRS V and the Genesis 1 and 2 and 200 and a long list of large speakers ...I like the Dnleavy speakers those were time aligned and the Dynaudio Evidence series which have first order crossover but are not time aligned. I did find their presentation satisfactory .. So I could learn a few more things .. I don't think Magico is Time aligned but those I heard, the Q3 are wonderful transducers .. Big when necessary and later as small as the recording demands it ...

You are partially right no multi-driver speaker is truly time aligned over its entire frequency range the best way to have clsoe to perfect tiem and phase alignment is to use Digital Filters some people call them DSP ;) .. By the way the Jury s out the better speakers those garnering kudos and adulation aren;t time aligned I would think the debate is still on ...

I apologize to Mike Lavigne for being too OT ..My last point on the subject we can always go to a new thread or other Time alignment thread for TIme alignment matters.
 
FrantzM said:
(...) I have heard speakers that are not time aligned among them the Alexandria X-2 (...)
Click to expand...

Frantz,

I have been reading the Alexandria X2 manual recently and found

"The fact is, misalignment of the drivers by fractions of an inch will audibly degrade transient accuracy, soundstage height, depth, and width. Misalignment of the drivers will also introduce tonal anomalies that destroy the otherwise convincing “presence” of an instrument or a singer’s voice. Wilson’s solution for group delay correction has long set the standard for precise driver positioning in order to insure correct time alignment for a wide range of real room listening distances and ear heights."

Is there any special reason that makes you say they are not time aligned?
 
Apparently not. It may have been to his advantage to join in on the discussions. Apparently, this was not his choice.

Tom
 
microstrip said:
Frantz,

I have been reading the Alexandria X2 manual recently and found

"The fact is, misalignment of the drivers by fractions of an inch will audibly degrade transient accuracy, soundstage height, depth, and width. Misalignment of the drivers will also introduce tonal anomalies that destroy the otherwise convincing “presence” of an instrument or a singer’s voice. Wilson’s solution for group delay correction has long set the standard for precise driver positioning in order to insure correct time alignment for a wide range of real room listening distances and ear heights."

Is there any special reason that makes you say they are not time aligned?
Click to expand...

David Wilson is using some slick definitions of wording here. As with the most recent Alexia, where he talks about the "same level of time accuracy" as the XLR, etc etc.
One needs to know exactly how he is defining things. In his terms, the time alignment has to do with the leading edge of an impulse response of a given driver. In other words, if you have the driver by itself, NO CROSSOVER PARTS, and measure an impulse response with it then you can "align" the leading edge of various drivers based on this impulse response. Technically speaking, in this scenario, all of the drivers are time ALIGNED. But it ONLY works if there is no crossover leading the drivers.
This is why all Wilson speakers that have adjustable driver arrays also come with a spread sheet that tells you exactly where to position each driver based on listening distance and height. They have already calculated what works best. Once the crossover is introduced permanently, it is no longer possible to measure the relative time alignment of the drivers because the crossover itself (other than a 1st order, which they DONT use.) introduces time and phase delays.

A Wilson speaker CAN be made to sound much better when all of it's drivers are positioned in space in order to sinc their leading edge. But they will still be no match for the precision of a truly time and phase COHERENT design.
The most important thing to take from this is that time "aligned" can mean pretty much anything. Time "coherent" means only one thing and it demands that timing is accounted for in both the drivers position in space as well as the delays within the crossover network.
 
Champ04 said:
David Wilson is using some slick definitions of wording here. As with the most recent Alexia, where he talks about the "same level of time accuracy" as the XLR, etc etc.
One needs to know exactly how he is defining things. In his terms, the time alignment has to do with the leading edge of an impulse response of a given driver. In other words, if you have the driver by itself, NO CROSSOVER PARTS, and measure an impulse response with it then you can "align" the leading edge of various drivers based on this impulse response. Technically speaking, in this scenario, all of the drivers are time ALIGNED. But it ONLY works if there is no crossover leading the drivers.
This is why all Wilson speakers that have adjustable driver arrays also come with a spread sheet that tells you exactly where to position each driver based on listening distance and height. They have already calculated what works best. Once the crossover is introduced permanently, it is no longer possible to measure the relative time alignment of the drivers because the crossover itself (other than a 1st order, which they DONT use.) introduces time and phase delays.

A Wilson speaker CAN be made to sound much better when all of it's drivers are positioned in space in order to sinc their leading edge. But they will still be no match for the precision of a truly time and phase COHERENT design.
The most important thing to take from this is that time "aligned" can mean pretty much anything. Time "coherent" means only one thing and it demands that timing is accounted for in both the drivers position in space as well as the delays within the crossover network.
Click to expand...

What Champ04 says :)

I repeat that the jury is out most speaker designers don't think it to be an issue. SOme people point out that for the wavelength in question the audibility is likely swamped by the Haas effect; The fact that if two sounds are separated by less than 40 ms the brain/ear apparatus integrate them as one, IOW the second sounds appears as a component of the first ... It explains why subwoofer can integrate way back with mains such as the configuration Gregadd posted inthe WAMM picture and most implementation I have seen of the Genesis and IRS speakers. Indeed most speakers out there are not time coherent. The few that comes to mind and that are:
Vandersteen, Thiel and the no longer made Dunlavy, I believe the Duntech were that but am not sure ... I did like the Dunleavy a lot ... The Vandersten, not so much ...

Back to Mike MM7 :b
 
FrantzM said:
What Champ04 says :)

I repeat that the jury is out most speaker designers don't think it to be an issue. SOme people point out that for the wavelength in question the audibility is likely swamped by the Haas effect; The fact that if two sounds are separated by less than 40 ms the brain/ear apparatus integrate them as one, IOW the second sounds appears as a component of the first ... It explains why subwoofer can integrate way back with mains such as the configuration Gregadd posted inthe WAMM picture and most implementation I have seen of the Genesis and IRS speakers. Indeed most speakers out there are not time coherent. The few that comes to mind and that are:
Vandersteen, Thiel and the no longer made Dunlavy, I believe the Duntech were that but am not sure ... I did like the Dunleavy a lot ... The Vandersten, not so much ...

Back to Mike MM7 :b
Click to expand...

i'm not personally in a position to know technically whether the MM7's are time aligned or not; but if Kevin says they are then i'd say that is good enough for me.

i wish the participants in this time aligned subject discussion could all hear the before and after in my room these last few days. pretty amazing stuff. i'm listening to a great piano recording right now which is so coherent and in balance. Beethoven 1st Piano Concerto, Michelangeli/Giulini conducting, DG 2531 302, Speakers Corner reissue 33rpm pressing. great music, excellent live recording with a nice piano-orchestra balance. i get the size and harmonic projection of a real piano, and the whole dynamic complexity of top to bottom runs. the bass energy is very connected to every nuance which gets spooky. and a nailed down solidity to everything that makes it seem real.

i played a redbook cut for a visitor last night that blew his mind; from a demo disc i've had forever; Ray Brown and Laurindo Almeida-Moonlight Serenade. classical guitar playing Bach and double bass playing Monk. together. my visitor turned to me after the double bass comes in the second time and takes flight and he said he could not believe what he just heard. this cut alone would likely define bass performance as it actually relates to musical reproduction. sound becomes emotion.

Frantz,

you will just need to visit and give me your opinion about whether it sounds time aligned.
 
Mike Lavigne said:
i'm not personally in a position to know technically whether the MM7's are time aligned or not; but if Kevin says they are then i'd say that is good enough for me.

i wish the participants in this time aligned subject discussion could all hear the before and after in my room these last few days. pretty amazing stuff. i'm listening to a great piano recording right now which is so coherent and in balance. Beethoven 1st Piano Concerto, Michelangeli/Giulini conducting, DG 2531 302, Speakers Corner reissue 33rpm pressing. great music, excellent live recording with a nice piano-orchestra balance. i get the size and harmonic projection of a real piano, and the whole dynamic complexity of top to bottom runs. the bass energy is very connected to every nuance which gets spooky. and a nailed down solidity to everything that makes it seem real.

i played a redbook cut for a visitor last night that blew his mind; from a demo disc i've had forever; Ray Brown and Laurindo Almeida-Moonlight Serenade. classical guitar playing Bach and double bass playing Monk. together. my visitor turned to me after the double bass comes in the second time and takes flight and he said he could not believe what he just heard. this cut alone would likely define bass performance as it actually relates to musical reproduction. sound becomes emotion.

Frantz,

you will just need to visit and give me your opinion about whether it sounds time aligned.
Click to expand...

Mike

I do not believe that Time ALignment is a necessary atteribute of a great speakers and yes I will hear it and haveno doubt tha they are as good as they get ... I admit to be a stickler for precision .. TIme alignment is brandied too often when it is not the case. Not saying that yours aren't .. I don't know ... A case of more specs what is on the web site doesn't say much about the typeof crossover they use...

DO enjoy these speakers, I know I would have .. and will soon..
 
Mike Lavigne said:
i'm not personally in a position to know technically whether the MM7's are time aligned or not; but if Kevin says they are then i'd say that is good enough for me.
Click to expand...

Evolution Acoustics uses a 1st order series crossover. So they certainly have the capacity to be time coherent. Whether or not they are either time coherent or time aligned is a question of precision. The fact that the drivers are staggered, as they should be, in the vertical plane is the next step towards being time coherent. But, to the best of my knowledge, EA does not use an anechoic chamber. Those are ridiculously expensive to implement properly and I highly doubt EA has had the start up capital to implement one. Having an anechoic chamber is a must for truly precise time coherence across many drivers.
That being said, even if they designed by ear only, they are going to be far more time coherent than any design which uses drivers in the same plane and/or any order crossover greater than 1. Those designs have no hope of true time coherence. Thus the EA speakers are certainly within their rights to claim some sort of time coherence.

FrantzM said:
Indeed most speakers out there are not time coherent. The few that comes to mind and that are:
Vandersteen, Thiel and the no longer made Dunlavy, I believe the Duntech were that but am not sure ... I did like the Dunleavy a lot ... The Vandersten, not so much ...
Click to expand...

Duntech was pretty much in the same boat as EA is now. John Dunlavy designed those before the advent of the MLSSA measuring system. Indeed, the acquisition of that is part of what led him to restart under the Dunlavy Audio Labs name.
One other now defunct time coherent design was Meadowlark Audio.
Roy Johnson, of Green Mountain Audio, is easily the leading expert on time and phase coherent design currently making speakers. This is not to take anything away from Richard Vandersteen. Roy just has a more "academic" understanding of it all. He could teach a college course on the subject, I'm sure.
Technically speaking, no speaker has come close to the across the board MEASURABLE accuracy of the Dunlavy designs. He was a true genius, holding both classified and unclassified patents outside the realm of but very applicable to wave propagation and audio reproduction.

It's true that the official jury is out on the importance of time and phase coherence. But not for those who have spent a lot of time living with it. It is painfully difficult for those who have adapted to the superior accuracy of the signal reproduction to again live without it in most cases. (Not all. But most.)
Though he never published his findings, John Dunlavy ran experiments testing sensitivity to time and phase at a university. The fact that he went into business building speakers of just such type might be result enough.
Pat McGinty, of Meadowlark, rigged two way speakers whereby listeners could adjust the relative distance between the woofer and tweeter while in the listening position. He reported to me that, more often than not, they preferred positions that were very nearly exactly in the position that he had already measured to be time coherent.
Several years ago I replicated his experiment for my own fun and edification. I used a two way speaker that implemented a 1st order crossover. The tweeter was infinitely adjustable in space with respect to the woofer. I spent hours making slight adjustments to this speaker before finally finding a spot that I was very confident in. Or, at least the one that most enjoyed listening to. I then measured this position and found that the time coherence between the tweeter and woofer was less than 1.5 ms.
Now, I'm not claiming to be super human or golden eared or any thing like that. What I did was certainly not rigorous academic testing protocol. But it was enough to satisfy me in knowing that the only speakers I was ever going to truly appreciate were going to be time and phase coherent. And ever since then I can hear immediately when a speaker comes close to this (according to me) ideal. For instance, the first time I heard the Burmester B100 speaker I knew there had to be something special about it. After some research I was able to confirm that it used 1st order crossover slopes. Looking at the speaker you can't really tell if it's truly time aligned physically. But it's close enough that I was able to HEAR the qualities before confirming them on paper. And while the big Dynaudio speakers are not truly time aligned, they are close enough that I still find them to be very listenable over very long periods of time.

Back to the MM7....
Here in is the real dilemma I have between the MM7 and the Magico Q7. The MM7 is certainly at least close to precise time coherence. I was also able to hear this before confirming on paper. But I don't like the tweeter or the colorations of the ceramic.
I DO really like the sound (or what I would regard as the lack of sound) found in carbon fiber drivers and (what I would consider) a superior cabinet design of the Q7. But as much as I would love to love the Q7, I can't get past the time smear that I hear every time I listen to them.
Such is life!.......
 
Last edited:
Mike Lavigne said:
do tell; where did you happen to hear it?
Click to expand...

Sorry Mike, it's a little confusing the way I stated that.
It was hearing EA in general for the first time that made me think that they must be using 1st order slopes. This is what made them stand out to me. I'm pretty sure it was the MM3 at that point. I'm assuming that the MM7 doesn't deviate from that principle.
 
FrantzM said:
Thanks Champ04 and Rbert

I hesitated to address the issue , the thread being about MikeL's MM7. I don't know the particular of the MM7 , I dont know if they're first order crossovers. I honestly have my doubt about them being first-order, First order sensitivity tends to be much lower but I am wildly speculating I could be wrong perhaps the manufacturer or importer could chime in. I don't see mention of such in their website So I don't know and if indeed they are it is likely better to have them close to the mains at the same distance to the listeners ...

Now about some of A. Wayne claims that do need to be addressed:

Crossovers are electrical beast thus youhave to time aligned there first ... You must electrically aligned the drivers else you will not have a time-aligned speaker. Digital system can do a much better job than analog which are for the most parts crude approximation of filter equations which are mathematical functions. Fact not opinion. Saying DSP is a band-aid is too broad a generalization. Implementation varies and people may like the results or not . People like bass in their cars so much it rattles other people windows .. Preferences. DSP is a very valid solution for the problem and in theory is superior to analog at least in the way the mathematical functions is implemented ...

The ESL 57 is a panel speaker. I don't know about its phase or time alignment. I know about the incredible impulse response of the ESL-63, another panel speaker, still your argument about the time smear and other things about panel speakers does not hold too much weight unless it is an opinion in which case you are free to have it . I would like however to see facts.

Now it could be true that time aligned speakers are better. I don't know . I have heard speakers that are not time aligned among them the Alexandria X-2 and it does what you describe extremely well and the IRS V and the Genesis 1 and 2 and 200 and a long list of large speakers ...I like the Dnleavy speakers those were time aligned and the Dynaudio Evidence series which have first order crossover but are not time aligned. I did find their presentation satisfactory .. So I could learn a few more things .. I don't think Magico is Time aligned but those I heard, the Q3 are wonderful transducers .. Big when necessary and later as small as the recording demands it ...

You are partially right no multi-driver speaker is truly time aligned over its entire frequency range the best way to have clsoe to perfect tiem and phase alignment is to use Digital Filters some people call them DSP ;) .. By the way the Jury s out the better speakers those garnering kudos and adulation aren;t time aligned I would think the debate is still on ...

I apologize to Mike Lavigne for being too OT ..My last point on the subject we can always go to a new thread or other Time alignment thread for TIme alignment matters.
Click to expand...

Firstly i want to address an error. , i meant to say 63 not 57 in my previous response so you are correct when saying 63 , as to the rest if you read back i said it was a combination of physical and electrical properties , proper xover mix is a must , a straight first or second order xovers will not address this issue in its entirety, it requires a careful mix and combination of both electrical and physical alignment....

Frantz, less take for eg your transducer of choice , Panel speakers , (i have one too:))the amount of acoustical smearing is astonishing , we can start with the lost reverberant field around instruments and voices , this is why you hear such a wide disparity between your headphones and your speakers, most panel speakers have this issue , they go from Ok to very bad , from Belafonte at 35% Carnegie Hall, to a small room ...

This is what point source speakers do better, they do suffer from dynamic compression in the mids/highs more , so there is a constant tradeoff , accuracy and detail in the recoding vs size and growth , still it's Hilarious to hear the word resolution to describe the sound of most panel speakers, big and open sounding they are , recording details , No !

The 63 is the rare exception here as it will resolve and yes it has a seriously good step and Impulse response and the upgraded ones from Wayne Pk can actually play loud enuff to have power ..


Regards ,

PS: I have yet to hear DSP out do passive xovers, i'm open to hearing it do so , the lyndorfs and others i have heard Have not convinced me they are there yet..

Seeing what they do , it's possible a melling of the two is the way to go ...
 
Last edited:
A.wayne said:
Firstly i want to address an error. , i meant to say 63 not 57 in my previous response so you are correct when saying 63 , as to the rest if you read back i said it was a combination of physical and electrical properties , proper xover mix is a must , a straight first or second order xovers will not address this issue in its entirety, it requires a careful mix and combination of both electrical and physical alignment....

Frantz, less take for eg your transducer of choice , Panel speakers , (i have one too:))the amount of acoustical smearing is astonishing , we can start with the lost reverberant field around instruments and voices , this is why you hear such a wide disparity between your headphones and your speakers, most panel speakers have this issue , they go from Ok to very bad , from Belafonte at 35% Carnegie Hall, to a small room ...

This is what point source speakers do better, they do suffer from dynamic compression in the mids/highs more , so there is a constant tradeoff , accuracy and detail in the recoding vs size and growth , still it's Hilarious to hear the word resolution to describe the sound of most panel speakers, big and open sounding they are , recording details , No !

The 63 is the rare exception here as it will resolve and yes it has a seriously good step and Impulse response and the upgraded ones from Wayne Pk can actually play loud enuff to have power ..


Regards ,

PS: I have yet to hear DSP out do passive xovers, i'm open to hearing it do so , the lyndorfs and others i have heard Have not convinced me they are there yet..

Seeing what they do , it's possible a melling of the two is the way to go ...
Click to expand...

A. Wayne .. Let's move this to another thread there was one about Time Alignement. I'll look for it and post there ...
 
the set-list tonight on the MM7's thru the NVS-Telos-Anna....

Pink Floyd, 'The Wall', all 4 sides. wonderful. very minty US pressing i've had for awhile. TML-S in the dead wax. mastered by Doug Sax of 'The Mastering Lab'. very clean, great bass. a 'holodeck experience'.

Neil Young's Greatest Hits; side 1, both tracks.....'Down By The River' and 'Cowgirl In the Sand'. sweet!

and now playing......Jeff Buckley, 'Grace', Simply Vinyl re-issue pressing. track 1, Side 2, 'Hallelujah'. soo intimate.

i'm starting the new year right.....
 
Mike Lavigne said:
the set-list tonight on the MM7's thru the NVS-Telos-Anna....

Pink Floyd, 'The Wall', all 4 sides. wonderful. very minty US pressing i've had for awhile. TML-S in the dead wax. mastered by Doug Sax of 'The Mastering Lab'. very clean, great bass. a 'holodeck experience'.

Neil Young's Greatest Hits; side 1, both tracks.....'Down By The River' and 'Cowgirl In the Sand'. sweet!

and now playing......Jeff Buckley, 'Grace', Simply Vinyl re-issue pressing. track 1, Side 2, 'Hallelujah'. soo intimate.

i'm starting the new year right.....
Click to expand...

Nice :). I have started the new year where I left off 2012...with King Crimson. But to give the year a chance I decided to start with the mellow Prince Rupert Awakes from the album Lizard.....followed with 21st Century Schizoid Man from ITCOTKC...sorry...couldn't help it :p.
Maybe something for a new thread: what are your 3 favourite bands?
All the best for 2013 :) !
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

W
New Here
Replies
10
Views
473
Members' Systems
exupgh12
exupgh12
byrdparis
Distenation Audio NIKA - with love.
Replies
4
Views
1K
General Audio Forum
Rob181
Rob181
TooCool4
New Speakers
Replies
11
Views
2K
Speakers
TooCool4
TooCool4
sbnx
Pure Low GR -- Infrasonic Panel
Replies
68
Views
4K
Subwoofers
LL21
L
P
System Upgrade - Report and Feedback
Replies
28
Views
3K
General Audio Forum
Peter Bomberg
P

About us

  • What’s Best Forum is THE forum for high end audio, product reviews, advice and sharing experiences on the best of everything else. This is THE place where audiophiles and audio companies discuss vintage, contemporary and new audio products, music servers, music streamers, computer audio, digital-to-analog converters, turntables, phono stages, cartridges, reel-to-reel tape machines, speakers, headphones and tube and solid-state amplification. Founded in 2010 What’s Best Forum invites intelligent and courteous people of all interests and backgrounds to describe and discuss the best of everything. From beginners to life-long hobbyists to industry professionals, we enjoy learning about new things and meeting new people, and participating in spirited debates.

Quick Navigation

Home Forums

User Menu

Login
Top Bottom