Listened carefully to Mac array recently in Athens Hi-End show. Since I have come across many professional line arrays and was in the team of developing one, I got dissapointed to understand that the Mac people did not care at all to learn from the extensive information available in the pro world. I am sorry to say that the lobing issues were severe and the treble was either too much or absent by just moving myself a little in the room.
As for the Wilsons, I never found them remarkable. The best I have listened from them was the Witt. The Watt & Puppy I have listened to from their first guise. In the same show I listened to the 7. Exaggerated midbass, too hot upper mid, no air, congested. I liked the Horning Agathon 1000 times better.
As for the Wilsons, I never found them remarkable. The best I have listened from them was the Witt. The Watt & Puppy I have listened to from their first guise. In the same show I listened to the 7. Exaggerated midbass, too hot upper mid, no air, congested. I liked the Horning Agathon 1000 times better.
a good read
Since the issue of frequency response and objectivism vs subjectivism surfaced in this thread, a good read would be:
http://www.zainea.com/multidimensionalaudio.htm
Since the issue of frequency response and objectivism vs subjectivism surfaced in this thread, a good read would be:
http://www.zainea.com/multidimensionalaudio.htm
After giving this some thought I have been thinking that these bad frequency results may be intentional. With the abundance of speakers and the amount of purchasers out there, how does a manufacturer attract new customers? How do you get someone to purchase again in a couple o years to keep your factory going. Notice how some people keep changing their components every couple of years. Since no two people have the same hearing, hearing loss due to age, or purchasing power, the manufacturers alter the sound a bit here and there to get the attention of a certain group.
Notice that if you look at a few different televisions, one has better blues the other has better reds and another has better greens. You can apply this to camera lenses also. So why not do the same thing to audio.
If this is what they are doing to speakers I feel they are doing a disservice to their customers, but the biggest disservice is by the magazines that are the actual frauds. The manufacturers are just making a product and if someone likes it they buy it. When the magazine exaggerates the speaker in order to increase circulation and advertising money then they are the true villains are they not?
Being hobbyists, we know that the response should be flat in order to reproduce the sound accurately. The majority of people out there are not knowledgeable in what it takes to make a speaker or have the ability to read and understand a graph.
At the end it does come down to personal taste whether right or wrong. If the purchaser has not done his homework he is the one to re-buy.
I listened to the Mac last month and I also was not impressed with the results.
Notice that if you look at a few different televisions, one has better blues the other has better reds and another has better greens. You can apply this to camera lenses also. So why not do the same thing to audio.
If this is what they are doing to speakers I feel they are doing a disservice to their customers, but the biggest disservice is by the magazines that are the actual frauds. The manufacturers are just making a product and if someone likes it they buy it. When the magazine exaggerates the speaker in order to increase circulation and advertising money then they are the true villains are they not?
Being hobbyists, we know that the response should be flat in order to reproduce the sound accurately. The majority of people out there are not knowledgeable in what it takes to make a speaker or have the ability to read and understand a graph.
At the end it does come down to personal taste whether right or wrong. If the purchaser has not done his homework he is the one to re-buy.
I listened to the Mac last month and I also was not impressed with the results.
Answering the OP's question: I think yes.
There is no speaker out there that is totally neutral. If one can attract a lot of buyers with voiced speakers why shouldn't he do it ?
I share the opinion with B4 that mags should stop to rave about products that are too far from neutral (sometimes maybe only because they are expensive or because they are advertising customers or even both), even though one could like them from a subjective point of view.
I once had the chance to listen to the Wilson Sophia and I must say that it sounded NICE and I had the feeling that it would sell quite well.
But was it neutral and accurate ? No !
BTW: Critizising Wilson speakers alone for not being time-aligned is a little unfair since this accounts for more than 99% of the speakers out there.
Regards
Charles
There is no speaker out there that is totally neutral. If one can attract a lot of buyers with voiced speakers why shouldn't he do it ?
I share the opinion with B4 that mags should stop to rave about products that are too far from neutral (sometimes maybe only because they are expensive or because they are advertising customers or even both), even though one could like them from a subjective point of view.
I once had the chance to listen to the Wilson Sophia and I must say that it sounded NICE and I had the feeling that it would sell quite well.
But was it neutral and accurate ? No !
BTW: Critizising Wilson speakers alone for not being time-aligned is a little unfair since this accounts for more than 99% of the speakers out there.
Regards
Charles
I have to respectfully diagree with the gentleman who believes that large midrange drivers are inferior to small diameter drivers. The best midrange that I have had in my listening room comes from a pair of Altec 414 12" woofers. Small midrange drivers all sound anemic to me. The lower midrange/upper bass frequencies are very difficult to reproduce with authority, perhaps because most speakers have diffraction issues. The light paper cone and huge magnet structure on these woofers give me plenty of "speed" without sounding thin and washed out. Of course, YMMV.
About large midrange drivers
Referring to the discussion about the supposed inferiority of larger diameter midrange drivers: I believe the writer had in mind the off-axis response, and I deduce that he prefers multi-way speakers to get the best off-axis response. Had he actually stated this, it would make a compelling argument, but unfortunately he did not elaborate. It can be seen on some of the graphs published above how that the FR curve droops at the crossover points in the off-axis graph (these are not the worst curves I've seen, though). This is due to crossing over the driver too high (see Dickason's LDC). This can be remedied in two ways: (1) lower the crossover point (risk of overdriving tweeter) or (2) cross over to an intermediate-sized driver (i.e., extra driver, different crossover frequencies).
The argument about the large driver in the Orion not degrading performance is not applicable, as this is a different design altogether. In conventional designs, first prize goes to using each driver within its pistonic range (to approach spherical radiation). The Orion, being a dipole, has a different radiation pattern (figure-of-8); off-axis respone is less of a factor. The same drivers, when applied in a monopole design, would have inferior polar response to a 3-way using the same bass driver and tweeter.
Harman Kardon has a few nice papers on the subject
Referring to the discussion about the supposed inferiority of larger diameter midrange drivers: I believe the writer had in mind the off-axis response, and I deduce that he prefers multi-way speakers to get the best off-axis response. Had he actually stated this, it would make a compelling argument, but unfortunately he did not elaborate. It can be seen on some of the graphs published above how that the FR curve droops at the crossover points in the off-axis graph (these are not the worst curves I've seen, though). This is due to crossing over the driver too high (see Dickason's LDC). This can be remedied in two ways: (1) lower the crossover point (risk of overdriving tweeter) or (2) cross over to an intermediate-sized driver (i.e., extra driver, different crossover frequencies).
The argument about the large driver in the Orion not degrading performance is not applicable, as this is a different design altogether. In conventional designs, first prize goes to using each driver within its pistonic range (to approach spherical radiation). The Orion, being a dipole, has a different radiation pattern (figure-of-8); off-axis respone is less of a factor. The same drivers, when applied in a monopole design, would have inferior polar response to a 3-way using the same bass driver and tweeter.
Harman Kardon has a few nice papers on the subject
That audio perfectionist article, while thought provoking, has as much **** in it as the Stereophile and TAS articles that he's denouncing. His "woofer" arguement is just plain silly unless he shows that they are being crossed at frequencies that would indeed cause problems in the power response. He states it like a fact that you can not use a larger midrange driver, when that's just not the case. You just need to carefully plan for proper crossover frequencies to avoid a poor power response. Some of the best sounding (and most accurate) speakers in the world use large "woofers". In many cases, their benefits outweigh their drawbacks.
He goes on to mumble about 8" woofers not being able to provide deep bass without equalization, which again is just a gross generalization that often does not reflect reality.
Going on further, he starts in about using multiple bass drivers, saying that they have less definition and more overhang than one. I have no idea where this nonsense comes from, but I personally prefer the idea of using multiple woofers in order to reduce excursion and lower distortion... which oddly enough is the same reason I like using 7" woofers instead of 3" midranges.
He goes on to mention that CSD plots show energy storage in the midrange, and again blames this on the use of a 7" driver since accelerometers show the cabinets aren't excited. He says nothing of the possibility that the cone is ringing from internal reflections. There's more to a good enclosure than rigidity. CSDs from other speaker systems that use the same Scan Speak woofers don't seem to exhibit the same ringing.
His constant complaints of phase correct wiring is also irritating.
There's far too much ******** in that article for it to carry any merit above the Stereophile and TAS reviews that he's trying to denounce.
He goes on to mumble about 8" woofers not being able to provide deep bass without equalization, which again is just a gross generalization that often does not reflect reality.
Going on further, he starts in about using multiple bass drivers, saying that they have less definition and more overhang than one. I have no idea where this nonsense comes from, but I personally prefer the idea of using multiple woofers in order to reduce excursion and lower distortion... which oddly enough is the same reason I like using 7" woofers instead of 3" midranges.
He goes on to mention that CSD plots show energy storage in the midrange, and again blames this on the use of a 7" driver since accelerometers show the cabinets aren't excited. He says nothing of the possibility that the cone is ringing from internal reflections. There's more to a good enclosure than rigidity. CSDs from other speaker systems that use the same Scan Speak woofers don't seem to exhibit the same ringing.
His constant complaints of phase correct wiring is also irritating.
There's far too much ******** in that article for it to carry any merit above the Stereophile and TAS reviews that he's trying to denounce.
Re: About large midrange drivers
As it turns out the Orions do use the driver within its pistonic range. You definitely know when you're out of piston behaviour with the Seas magnesium drivers because the 10 or 15 dB response peak won't let you forget it! On the other hand, larger pistons will show poorer dispersion, which Linkwitz mitigates by crossing over lower than most designs. You're right in supposing the dipole design helps, because the back radiation adds some more room energy in the range just below crossover, while the polar plot being a figure-8 also minimises the importance of dispersion past about +-45 degrees from on-axis.
One problem with the Orions is their need for a lot of space behind them, which limits their use in smaller rooms and home theatre systems. If you do have the room, however, one could do a lot worse than learning from Linkwitz.
Francois.
Shaun said:
As it turns out the Orions do use the driver within its pistonic range. You definitely know when you're out of piston behaviour with the Seas magnesium drivers because the 10 or 15 dB response peak won't let you forget it! On the other hand, larger pistons will show poorer dispersion, which Linkwitz mitigates by crossing over lower than most designs. You're right in supposing the dipole design helps, because the back radiation adds some more room energy in the range just below crossover, while the polar plot being a figure-8 also minimises the importance of dispersion past about +-45 degrees from on-axis.
One problem with the Orions is their need for a lot of space behind them, which limits their use in smaller rooms and home theatre systems. If you do have the room, however, one could do a lot worse than learning from Linkwitz.
Francois.
What are they doing?
Yes, Wilson Audio knows exactly what they are doing! They are making big amounts of Dollars and building hype better than audio Guru Mr. Mark Levinson.
Also they glue drivers, making replacement a PIA and encapsulate crossovers in epoxy. Hey, they must have learned that from marky Mark. LOL
Nevertheless the Wilsons Grand Slamm of my friend are impressive speakers.
Am I a moron or a mormon? [joke]
Yes, Wilson Audio knows exactly what they are doing! They are making big amounts of Dollars and building hype better than audio Guru Mr. Mark Levinson.
Also they glue drivers, making replacement a PIA and encapsulate crossovers in epoxy. Hey, they must have learned that from marky Mark. LOL
Nevertheless the Wilsons Grand Slamm of my friend are impressive speakers.
Am I a moron or a mormon? [joke]
Re: About large midrange drivers
Hm. What about B&W ? Their "midrange" is not dipole ?
And what is "inferior polar response" anyway ? If you WANTED directivity at certain frequencies (as to decrease smearing from early reflections for example) and used large driver, why is that inferior ? And to what ?
Dynaudio Evidences have taken radiation pattern control to another level, shaping the vertical pattern by using interference from two tweeters. Are they "inferior" to point source, free radiating design because of narrower dispersion ?
I've heard them, and I don't think so. At all.
Wider is not ALWAYS better.
Bratislav
Shaun said:
Hm. What about B&W ? Their "midrange" is not dipole ?
And what is "inferior polar response" anyway ? If you WANTED directivity at certain frequencies (as to decrease smearing from early reflections for example) and used large driver, why is that inferior ? And to what ?
Dynaudio Evidences have taken radiation pattern control to another level, shaping the vertical pattern by using interference from two tweeters. Are they "inferior" to point source, free radiating design because of narrower dispersion ?
I've heard them, and I don't think so. At all.
Wider is not ALWAYS better.
Bratislav
Jim85IROC said:
Spot on, Jim.
That is what I'm trying to say all the time. I'm NOT defending Wilson (as he needs anyone to defend him), just pointing the flaws in logic used to criticise. Yes, Wilson speakers are way overpriced for what they offer, but so are many other things in life. If people are prepared to spend 10K for a *******' PEN ... or 100K for piece of Elvis' underware (or whatever)...
I paid $4.95 for some Elvis sweat (still got it)! Do you think it'll have gone up in value?
I'm currently using 1x10" cone and 2x2" domes as midranges - but they're in sealed enclosures. I like it. I'd probably like the Orion also, but I've currently gone this way and don't know anyone locally with an Orion that I can listen to.
The (cone) dipoles I've heard so far haven't impressed me (are the Dynaudios the ones with a few midranges in open baffle in the centre of a tall, thin speaker?). But I'm always waiting to be impressed by something new that I can copy at home
I'm currently using 1x10" cone and 2x2" domes as midranges - but they're in sealed enclosures. I like it. I'd probably like the Orion also, but I've currently gone this way and don't know anyone locally with an Orion that I can listen to.
The (cone) dipoles I've heard so far haven't impressed me (are the Dynaudios the ones with a few midranges in open baffle in the centre of a tall, thin speaker?). But I'm always waiting to be impressed by something new that I can copy at home
Cloth Ears said:
There's more than one pair of Orions in Melbourne. It shouldn't be too difficult to organize the audition.
(are the Dynaudios the ones with a few midranges in open baffle in the centre of a tall, thin speaker?). But I'm always waiting to be impressed by something new that I can copy at home
Yup, tall slim, and expensive (125K A$).
But no, they are not open baffle. They use CNC machined solid block of 2" thick aluminium to hold mids and tweeters
http://www.dynaudiousa.com/products/evidence/evidence/artofevid/bigphoto/pair.jpg
and
http://www.dynaudiousa.com/products/evidence/evidence/artofevid/bigphoto/midmodulefront.jpg
Good luck in copying that one !
Bratislav
I personaly can't see the value in an eight inch driver covering the mid range. Not because it can't but I feel that the results are not good. Large drivers make the voices very heavy sounding, for me anyway they are not natural sounding. If ones tastes are for that then fine, but I am after a more realistic sound. I have not covered directivity etc.
I don't see why anyone building a three way system would use anything higher then a 5 inch for the mids. For a two way system I think that the best compromise is a seven inch driver. Full range people don't have a choice if they only want one driver to have a good balance and cover most ot the audible range they would probably go for a 10 or 12 inch driver.
Cloth Ears, maybe you could trade it up for a house eventually.
I don't see why anyone building a three way system would use anything higher then a 5 inch for the mids. For a two way system I think that the best compromise is a seven inch driver. Full range people don't have a choice if they only want one driver to have a good balance and cover most ot the audible range they would probably go for a 10 or 12 inch driver.
Cloth Ears, maybe you could trade it up for a house eventually.
Hmmm, never even seen a Dynaudio - I wonder what I was thinking of?
And I'll have to try to listen to an Orion - but after Xmas...
A house!, how can I possibly think of a house when my system is sooo out of date? I think Stan Freberg said it best:
Well, the Elvis sweat is unopened, so maybe I could trade that (or the autographed Dean Martin photo) for the house...
And I'll have to try to listen to an Orion - but after Xmas...
A house!, how can I possibly think of a house when my system is sooo out of date? I think Stan Freberg said it best:
Well, the Elvis sweat is unopened, so maybe I could trade that (or the autographed Dean Martin photo) for the house...
Realistic ...
Hm. After hearing more than 50 live symphonic pieces and half a dozen operas this year alone I thought I have some idea about what realistic sound is
Anyway I can only say - if you have chance, please listen to Orion's midrange and then we can discuss tastes.
Bratislav
Yes, I have heard what's considered by many as world's best dome (ATC SM75-150S, 96dB version), as well as Dynaudio's Esotar version of D52, their D76, Yamaha's beryllium dome in NS1000M, Accuton (Thiel) C2-44 and C2-79, and have in my home a speaker with two Seas W11's as mids (VAF i66).
W22 in Orion is more realistic than all of them.
B4 said:
Hm. After hearing more than 50 live symphonic pieces and half a dozen operas this year alone I thought I have some idea about what realistic sound is
Anyway I can only say - if you have chance, please listen to Orion's midrange and then we can discuss tastes.
Bratislav
Yes, I have heard what's considered by many as world's best dome (ATC SM75-150S, 96dB version), as well as Dynaudio's Esotar version of D52, their D76, Yamaha's beryllium dome in NS1000M, Accuton (Thiel) C2-44 and C2-79, and have in my home a speaker with two Seas W11's as mids (VAF i66).
W22 in Orion is more realistic than all of them.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.