The Path to Paradise . . . or the Road to Ruin?

[Andre Marc]

The absolutist statement I referred to was by DaveyF not you - "no electrostatic can come close to a great dynamic driver when it comes to reproduce dynamics. " - to which I replied with a post on stats, non stat panels, and horns. Thing being that dynamic driver speakers are actually nowhere the last word in dynamics

One thing I realized is if an audiophile believes something strongly enough..it is their reality, regardless of how you try to argue with them.

When I hear 'philes vinyl is better than digital, or digital is better than vinyl, or tubes are better than SS, or SS is better than tubes, I simply keep my mouth shut if I can.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, here's a thought...the YG Sonja 1.3's.

Thank you for the suggestion. But I prefer planar speakers. The only dynamic driver speakers I would consider are the Rockport Arrakis and the EA MM7.

 

[Ron Resnick]

To try and buy one costly system is always going to keep one unsatisfied.

I do not agree this has to be the case. I have been happy with the same system for the last 16 years.

My mind just does not think in terms of multiple systems. If I liked all types of music equally that might make sense. I can see MartinLogan or ribbon for vocals and quartets and an all dynamic driver system for big orchestral.

But I know that vocals with acoustic accompaniment is my primary interest. To me that spells high transparency planar speaker.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Midrange transparency used to be superior in the 'stats', that's not really so true anymore. I believe the current crop of great dynamic speakers can equal...and in some cases even surpass 'stats' in midrange transparency.

I find this puzzling, but that's what makes horse racing!

My benchmark for midrange transparency is MartinLogan. I think ribbons are a shade less transparent than ML. I think the Arrakis is a shade less transparent than a ribbon.

I do not understand how it could be even theoretically possible for a relatively heavy cone to be as transparent as, let alone more transparent than, an electrostatic membrane.

 

[Ron Resnick]

Ron, In what sense are you referring to transparency?

I think the traditional definition of transparency is being able to hear "through" the soundstage, from the front of an acoustic space to the rear of that space.

By transparency I mean that with respect to having the sense that a live person is singing to me in my listening room there is nothing "between" me and the singer. I conceive of the recreation of a vocal performance which makes as easy as possible the suspension of disbelief. I want to feel that I hear no electronic adulteration, no artificial or unbelievable "carrier" riding on the signal. Transparency to me means listening to a vocal performance with no electronic neutral density filter of any kind between me and the singer.

 

[Ron Resnick]

In my philosophy of sound reproduction I will always use subwoofer with any speaker save (maybe? ) for things like the Gen 1.x , MM7 and perhaps the VR11 or similar many towers speakers. To me it is always better to have separate very low frequencies transducer (<100 Hz).

I agree with this. And also for the reason that I don't like the idea that low frequency vibrations are reaching the midrange and treble drivers in a single column system.

 

[Ron Resnick]

[/QUOTE]. . . those stats with dynamic woofers also had incredibly disjointed bass! Sure, the woofers were adding punch where the panels wouldn't be able to, but they did so at a much slower pace![/QUOTE]

I totally respect this criticism of planar/cone hybrids. What if tall woofer towers (I am thinking of a vertical array of 12" drivers) were used next to each planar speaker with a vestigial cone? Do you think that would ameliorate the sense of disjointment?

Do four column hybrid speaker systems sound disjointed to you?

 

[spiritofmusic]

Ron, you had a lot of affection for the Liszts horn sound when we demoed them recently. Have you completely dispensed w/the idea of going up to the Cessaro Gamma? I really do believe this may be the transducer that ticks all those boxes for you. And you'd be the envy of a'fools over North America as the only owner.

 

[Purite Audio]

If one can insert a component in an audio chain and that component neither adds nor subtracts anything ,then it can be said to be transparent.
Personally I would like a perfectly linear system, ie what comes out is exactly the same as what went in, only bigger.
Keith.

 

[Purite Audio]

I find this puzzling, but that's what makes horse racing!

My benchmark for midrange transparency is MartinLogan. I think ribbons are a shade less transparent than ML. I think the Arrakis is a shade less transparent than a ribbon.

I do not understand how it could be even theoretically possible for a relatively heavy cone to be as transparent as, let alone more transparent than, an electrostatic membrane.

there really should be no disparity between bass ,mod and HF, if the loudspeaker is designed properly, Frequencies below 80hz behave differently, and is not dependent on how they are produced.
Keith.

 

[asiufy]

. . . . those stats with dynamic woofers also had incredibly disjointed bass! Sure, the woofers were adding punch where the panels wouldn't be able to, but they did so at a much slower pace!

I totally respect this criticism of planar/cone hybrids. What if tall woofer towers (I am thinking of a vertical array of 12" drivers) were used next to each planar speaker with a vestigial cone? Do you think that would ameliorate the sense of disjointment?

Do four column hybrid speaker systems sound disjointed to you?

Hi Ron!

First, allow me to preface and qualify my criticism with something I've always mentioned: my exposure to planars are not extensive in the least, and I made that comment from the limited exposure I've had to them. As with anything, I'd love to be proven wrong, and be shown a planar hybrid with great driver integration If anything, the Avantgardes and the Evolution have proven that it IS possible to integrate very different drivers well!

I think the key here is the crossover, not where the bass cones/towers are placed. I'm not an acoustician, nor do I intend to be one But from my limited, purely empyrical experience, the crossover does all the magic in driver integration. That's why I don't think a "DIY" solution, from many vendors, will not work as well (or at least as easily) as a single vendor solution. I've heard, for instance, Wilson subwoofer towers integrated with non-Wilson speakers (Dynaudio), driven by Krell and D'Agostino amps, and the results were yucky.

Doing things in the digital domain, via something like a DEQX, will make integration easier, but again, it's not always desirable to have everything go through a digital loop.

Going back to your question, I think the key would be working with the woofer tower manufacturer to make sure they work "in sync" with your main speakers. If the manufacturer is willing to tweak his crossover to account for the character of your main speaker, then you might have a winner in your hands! Otherwise, it's a gamble, and the integration might or might not work "out of the box", and IMHO, no amount of fiddling and/or positioning might take care of differences in driver speed.

cheers!
alex

 

[Purite Audio]

A well designed loudspeaker may well measure flawlessly in an anechoic chamber or free field, but once placed into a room everything changes, as is often stated the room is in control below a few hundred hertz.
If you want really taut low bass you will need to look at the room /speaker interaction, whatever the design of the loudspeaker.
Keith.

 

[PeterA]

A well designed loudspeaker may well measure flawlessly in an anechoic chamber or free field, but once placed into a room everything changes, as is often stated the room is in control below a few hundred hertz.
If you want really taut low bass you will need to look at the room /speaker interaction, whatever the design of the loudspeaker.
Keith.

I believe this is why Jim Smith measured the frequency response of my system/room below 300hz to determine where the best listening position is for the smoothest bass response. Only after this was determined did he begin to work on speaker positioning. His results were very positive.

 

[microstrip]

I think the traditional definition of transparency is being able to hear "through" the soundstage, from the front of an acoustic space to the rear of that space.

By transparency I mean having the sense that a live peson is singing to me in my listening room. I conceive of the recreation of a vocal performance which makes as easy as possible the suspension of disbelief. I want to feel that I hear no electronic adulteration, no artificial or unbelievable "carrier" riding on the signal. Transparency to me means listening to a vocal performance with no electronic neutral density filter of any kind between me and the singer.

Unfortunately I do not have experience using the SoundLab's with sub's and active crossovers, I can not give a supported opinion on such systems.
The SoundLab's per se will give you the transparency you want, but not the bass depth ad dynamics you seem to require - although they can have slam in the bass. At some time I had them with Krell 750 MCx monoblocks and drums were really impressive. And they will place Amanda McBroom in your room as no other speaker can do.

Yesterday I helped a friend setting a pair of Thesonusfaber (Fenice). They are also able to dig through the soundstage, from the front of an acoustic space to the rear of that space in a remarkable way.

 

[microstrip]

I believe this is why Jim Smith measured the frequency response of my system/room below 300hz to determine where the best listening position is for the smoothest bass response. Only after this was determined did he begin to work on speaker positioning. His results were very positive.

Where here the speakers located for these measurements? I have already ordered the book and DVDs, but they were not yet delivered. International post and customs are always slow this time of the year ...

 

[Mike Lavigne]

I find this puzzling, but that's what makes horse racing!

My benchmark for midrange transparency is MartinLogan. I think ribbons are a shade less transparent than ML. I think the Arrakis is a shade less transparent than a ribbon.

I do not understand how it could be even theoretically possible for a relatively heavy cone to be as transparent as, let alone more transparent than, an electrostatic membrane.

because transparency is more than the physics of the membrane. it's also the crossover and amplifier and whole signal path. how does the whole chain affect that first watt? and....some dynamic 'cones' (ceramic as an example) are very very lightweight and combined with ribbon tweeters. even tubes compared to solid state comes into play. the right solid state has that lower noise and superior transparency which adds to transparency equation. and the room and tweaking make a difference. if you judge a dynamic speaker system in an untreated room with lots of reflectivity and then hear that same dynamic speaker system in a treated, purpose built room, transparency can be quite radically different. whereas a dipole might be much more consistent based on it's dispersion pattern.

generalities about transparency have to be filtered by how rooms affect that perception. you can improve that issue with a dynamic speaker whereas to a large degree a dipole is what you hear is what you get.

and linearity in the mid-bass and deep bass allow for more accurate overtones which very much affect percieved transparency. what good is transparency with bass discontinuity? that just reminding you it's a reproduction chain you are hearing.

it's what you hear not what you see. there are no absolutes.

 

[Purite Audio]

I believe this is why Jim Smith measured the frequency response of my system/room below 300hz to determine where the best listening position is for the smoothest bass response. Only after this was determined did he begin to work on speaker positioning. His results were very positive.

Positioning of you and the loudspeakers will help, but if you have a really large standing wave , you will need to look at passive and /or active room treatment.
Keith.

 

[DaveC]

Frequencies below 80hz behave differently, and is not dependent on how they are produced.
Keith.

It's not 80 Hz, it depends on the dimensions of the room. The frequency is sometimes called the Schroeder frequency, see section C2:

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/rooms.htm

 

[DaveC]

because transparency is more than the physics of the membrane. it's also the crossover and amplifier and whole signal path. how does the whole chain affect that first watt? and....some dynamic 'cones' (ceramic as an example) are very very lightweight and combined with ribbon tweeters...

The strength of the motor also plays a large part, which can be approximated by Bl^2/Re.

Also, it's not like ribbons are perfect, they produce a bit of glare imo... Personally, I think cones can be more transparent because they don't add that kind of distortion and together with the increased dynamics... well, I'll take a dynamic speaker over a ribbon/stat and a horn over a dynamic speaker.

 

[Purite Audio]

It's not 80 Hz, it depends on the dimensions of the room. The frequency is sometimes called the Schroeder frequency, see section C2:

http://www.linkwitzlab.com/rooms.htm

Schroeder frequency is where a room turns from resonant to reflected sound , 80Hz is around where bass becomes omnidirectional,
Keith.