Stereophile | January 2017 Issue
- Thread starter NorthStar
- Start date
Truly full range and seamless top to bottom is not a function of cones or panel or horn or the technology used. Ill take for example your MM7... Cone at the bottom , i think some treated papermaterial ... Acuton (Ceramic) drivers for most of the rest and an Aluminum ribbon on top. Yet this assembly of, excuse the choice of words, disparate material and technologies is to you and most who have heard it, an immensely satisfying, accurate and seamless top to bottom transducer. It is proof of what can be accomplished with any technology and refute violently your position. Let's call the approach hybrid for the lack of a better term. Hybrids can work.
The notion too often branded with an air of irrefutability that only horn subs would work with horn or a variation that only the subs made by the manufacturer can truly work with a given speaker or that only ESL can coherent, etc are as false as it can be and are regularly proven wrong by countless of serious systems of the highest caliber.
The reality of life and there I have to beg forgiveness for the use of a truism is about compromises and speakers are full of those by their very nature. The ideal would be one driver who would reproduce the entire range Virtually impossible with cones (Hell yeah! 100 to 10 Khz is not full range), fraught with issues with ESL (Most are not full range or if they have to be it is several panels assembled in some forms not just one) or they are severely restricted in output or ...same with most panels and I know of no full range compression driver; it is always multiple ways with horns. with the lowest notes requiring gargantuan horns .. 20 Hz in horn requires things that would be more than 10 meter long .. so people do basshorns that have to be equalized substantially to be of manageable size or have to build the basshorn into their houses... So we all end up with compromises.. Multi-way speakers are compromised and their crossovers are, analog speaker level crossover are very, so very compromised it is a wonder they work at all.
Taken on their own horns and their variants the waveguides offer mostly advantages. One of them being a better coupling of the transducer with the medium (the air to your ears), something we all want and that only horns and waveguide can offer. They also offer the promises of controlling mechanically the directivity at various frequencies and I would say that it s;lowly downing to me that directivity is one of the most important aspect in the way speakers react in a room... the final determinant of the sound we hear. Of course some of them not properly executed present distortions that are obvious, the honking for example. I see many celebrated horns with the drivers so widely spaced that it is a wonder that they can ever coincide even if you were seating in a neighboring country, thus you often hear that horns do not image well. That is not the case for those that are properly executed. As a matter of fact the better horns imaging say the JBL are something to behold. I would also take exception a the audiophile tendency to equate this with a price range . I cringe when I see things like you need to go north of 100 K to get what horns can do. No! WHile there is the tendency to bow at the altar of price, great results are achieved when people take their time to optimize their systems: it takes a while , takes knowledge, takes patience and humility. The humility factor shouldn't be forgotten: While it is about the sound we like we may have to remember that music often conveys a message and this is painstakingly clear in the choice of instruments from the people who brought the music. the screeching ( oh yes they screech) of violins has purpose... a system that makes a violin sounds sweet, a sound so many love is not doing justice to the music, is not carrying the message. of course the owner has all the rights to like what he/she likes but ... it would be more fulfilling methink to hear what Beethoven or Dvorak or Penderecki or (plug your favorite composer/artist here) had in mind .. were trying to convey.
So it is possible to have top to bottom coherence, great imaging and accurate sound from almost any technology. In the here and now, however Horns can do all of this plus a level of dynamics reproduction no other technology can even hint at. That is why I like horns. And it doesn't have to cost an arm and a leg. And it is better to mate them down low with properly DSP'd cone woofers. My dream is JBL K2 (or M2) with 3 Infinite Baffle subwoofer ( with at least 2 x 18 inches drivers) : 2 IB in the front of the listening position and 1 the back. DSP'd, EQ'd and time aligned with the mains.
Last edited:
Yes. Hghly dependent. Just don't tell me your cone speaker is seamless. IIRC not even if it's active with a brick wall slope.
Last edited:
Did you ever listen to such particular system in reality, or is your dream build on separate dreams?
Hi Frantz,
Sorry to single one sentence out from the rest of the text, but your point above is worth discussion. I think in some ways (taking into account your use of “almost”), you could say that that’s true.
But I think what’s lead to the continued production of SOTA or near-SOTA iterations of each topology is that while each of them can indeed approach the virtues of top-to-bottom coherence, great imaging and accurate sound (the “what”), the way they deliver those virtues (the “how”) is what differentiates each from the other and makes each of them still relevant in a time when we might have expected greater convergence. Instead, as this thread touches on, we have continued progressive divergence. I think the reason for this is simply that even when each topology is taken to its zenith, it still reflects the particular set of strengths/weaknesses inherent in their respective design/execution as you say (the compromises).
And it’s in their point of divergence of the how - especially in relation to texture, tone, macro/micro-dynamics, punch/slam, inter- and intra-note flow - that best illustrates why dynamics/stats/planars/horns continue to receive specific attention from individual manufacturers. Even if we were to isolate one aspect - say, bass below 100Hz - there’s almost no convergence between the way a near-SOTA stat delivers bass versus an equally ambitious design that uses large dynamic drivers (which could be implemented into a sealed, ported, open-baffle, slot-loaded or horn-loaded design).
I think it's still possible to have "top-to-bottom coherence, great imaging and accurate sound from almost any technology", but not in ways that are comparable with one another. Viva la difference.
Last edited:
Probably for coherence and imaging, not so sure about accuracy. But they will have very different approaches to sound reproduction and once you add dynamic range to the lot thinks become less clear.
Heard a few K2 (There are several) and am presently using a multi sub system with various speakers ( lately an Usher Audio Dancer,a very satisfying speaker , a loan). I have put totgether IBs for freinds and believe it represents the best when it comes to subwoofers. They provide also IMHO the highest ROI when it comes to subwoofers...
I haven't heard the M2 but based on what I got from the S9900 and S9700 and the buzz surrounding the M2, i wouldn't mind these speakers as my end of the road speakers, I also subscribe to the Sean Olive, Floyd Toole, Harman Philosophy of sound reproduction so ...
Just to be clear , you or I build systems based on separate dreams... Do you know a person with the exact same combo you now have? Same cables, speakers, room , etc .. No! You had a sound in mind audition a few pieces and come to a decision to make these work in your room.
I am not sure I understand what you're saying. Different roads can lead to similar results. Truism: There are many ways to skin a cat or make loudspeakers. All involve compromises of some sort; IMO horns are the least compromised of the lot.
my cone speakers (with ribbon tweeter) sound seamless top to bottom in my set-up. period.
Hi 853
I would beg to differ. Take bass. Some technologies "do" bass better than others. And on that cones are supreme. Often people talk about "texture" pf bass, my experience is what we call "texture" lies above in frequency, close to the lower midrange than low bass so if the timing relationship are well preserved it appears to be part of the texture of the low note. Else you may have a strange occurrence, let me explain: In itself 40 hz is 40 Hz ... (What's up with all these truisms?
) but a note @40 Hz fundamental from say a bass guitar is not the same as that of the same note payed by an organ.. The harmonic "spray" ( I hate that term but it says so much) is different in content intensity and phase relationships ... let us suppose for the sake of argument the 4th harmonic of this 40 Hz note... It is @ 160 Hz where the subwoofer shouldn't play (notice the operative word here: "shouldn't" ) and that is where things become complicated... You need the driver that needs to play the 160 hz to play it in correct relationship ( phase, intensity, timing) with the fundamental from the subs.. this is not easily achieved and people come up with description like "slow bass", Lack of texture... no decay etc ... THis would happen with any subs be it a stat , a cone or a horn... meanwhile depending on the type of driver the room is energized in different ways... the stats being a panel radiate in a figure 8 while the cone is likely to be omni down there .. more over if the stats is in charge of rreproducing both the 40 hz and the 160 hz it is likely to preserve many of the timing , phase and level relationships ... you would lose that in a multi-driver set-up withthe subs doing the 40 Hz and the panel or the cone or the horn doing the 160 Hz after a crossover that perhaps doesn't preserve the relationships mentioned above or setting on the crossover that destroys these and this would happen with analog , digital, passive or active designs. the net results would be a non-satisfactory reproduction. The culprits are not the technology but the settings, the application of the available technology . IF the correct settings would have been used the results could have been better.All this to tell you that in the end when well made there is a convergence, no matter what the technology. The way the technology is applied is the main factor. IOW, IMPLEMENTATION. At the upper level differences between chosen path become smaller. So small it may come to what our imagination can coerce us into thinking: "Oh it is a stat" then we think , great coherence... ribbon then good highs, silk dome ? then smooth highs , etc.. Not saying that all tweeter sound the same only that when well executed difference in drivers become minimal. to the extent of not being perceivable. Some drivers retain their flaws no matter what in which case despite the implementation some part of the reproduction will come out flawed.
Franz is correct. "Truly full range and seamless top to bottom is not a function of cones or panel or horn or the technology used." (and that includes the crossover design). For most of us, seamless means not only full range in frequency response, but one that is also well-aligned in the time and phase response throughout the power bandwidth. Gregadd, are you saying Mike's system cannot possibly be "seamless" even though you have not heard it? ? Well, to be honest, it may not be seamless in the same way as the Chicago Symphony playing in Orchestra Hall. But it is as convincingly seamless as one may ever get to hear from a home (or studio) sound reproduction system. I suggest you might consider making less outlandish statements until you have had the opportunity to hear Mike's system.
You make this a little too easy. The lawyer in me says a ribbon tweeter makes it a hybrid not a cone speaker. There must be more to your argument. What does the crossover graph look like?
Ahem. I don't think I ever want to get caught discounting the value of listening evaluations. In addition I have never criticized Mikes system that includes his room and power supply. I n fact I take every opportunity to praise it and him.
However being seamless is inconsistent with a multi- driver system. By nature they continue to respond beyond their intended range. This a problem a full range panel (single panel that is not full range)simply does not have.
this falls under the legal argument of 'I know porn when I see it'.
and listeners know seamless when they hear it.
I don't claim it's measurably flat + or - a particular db. only that it sounds seamless. and feedback I receive from various recent experienced listeners is that aspect particularly stands out as an attribute. and that the more the musical message demands from the system the more it is significantly seamless. "seamless' like panels' I believe is a paraphrase from one visitor who's highest reference is panels.
this is totally subjective and anecdotal.
and all of us could be horribly wrong.
I spent the last hour exploring ... R.I.P. Andre (MrAcoustat) • https://www.flickr.com/photos/mracoustat/
• http://www.apogeeacoustics.com/buyingguide.html
• http://www.apogeeacoustics.com/buyingguide.html
Last edited:
Hi Frantz,
Implementation is a different argument, I think. We’ve probably heard good and bad examples of everything there is to hear. And while I think those differences of implementation certainly matter, I’m not ready to say every well conceived transducer sounds the same either (nor am I suggesting you’re saying that). Again, I think we’re possibly approaching the subject from two different places. Again, it’s not so much the what, as it is the how, and it’s in the how that the differences become more asymmetrically weighted. That, for me, is where the divergence is greatest, and why each approach continues to have its own set of inherent compromises that define their particularity.
Hi Bonzo,
If my maths adds up, there’s like, er… twenty cones per pair. Wouldn’t one of the better representations of what cones can do be best illustrated by a system that uses ten of the suckers (comprised of three different materials) per side?