Thats some small print. I can't read it.
I see the drawings but I can't make out what the descriptions are.
It has a zoom function in the upper left of the web page.
The lower interest in the IMP might not be that weird.. I don't think many people have ever even heard of the AES paper(s).
Plus, one look at it - and it appears totally "home-brew" and cheap. Just like in "love", that first look determines a lot.
Thank you ScottG.No it isn't.
..and you very well know that.
Lynn Olsen did not like the sound coming from the Summas at I believe an older RMAF.
He was kind enough however to suggest that the reason for that conclusion was due to the mass-market amplifier you were using with the Summas.
That's a "poor review" under "show conditions" by any standard. It also precisely parallels Ohmolts comment:
"You cannot dismiss a speaker based simply on an experience from a show. Gedlee speakers have also received poor reviews from demos like that. But the fact is that they are both great speakers."
Which wasn't a derogatory statement AT ALL.
In fact, if anything it was complementary - but you seem to view even the slightest criticism as an attack, so it probably never dawned on you that it was complementary.
Again, very dissapointing from Geddes.
It has a zoom function in the upper left of the web page.
The lower interest in the IMP might not be that weird.. I don't think many people have ever even heard of the AES paper(s).
Plus, one look at it - and it appears totally "home-brew" and cheap. Just like in "love", that first look determines a lot.
Ha! ok, I was using the magnifier on my computer...to no avail
I can't agree with you. First of all the CBTs are not omnis horizontally.
Secondly, they are have an off-axis response horizontally that resembles the direct sound to a greater degree then a normal size waveguide/horn. How can you then say that lateral contribution from a CBT is worse then from a waveguide? It's the opposite. A speaker that is omni at some frequencies and narrow at others, will colour the sound far more.
And then you have the issue with treating the floor correctly. Most people can only use a carpet and they up with more coloration cause the carpet is only absorping the highs. I doubt many can place 8" of absorbents on the floor.
The vertical is not just a nuisance. Have you read the studies of Bech? The vertical early reflections had a more negative effect on timbre then the ones from sidewalls. And Toole's researches, though I don't necessarily agree with everyhing, indicates that if you're going to have a contribution, it should come from the sides.
The CBTs can offer both; A spacious soundfield where the reflected energy resembles the direct signal and hence little coloration. Or a more precise and sharp image with treatment if that's what you want. The listener gets to choose and both will work extremely well.
A typical waveguide/horn speaker can however not give the spacious soundfield without much coloration. If you leave the sidewalls reflective, you end up with some reflective energy at certain frequencies and nothing or less at others. In that case, broadband treatment is required for correctness.
An even more so vertically where the waveguide/horn will show more lobing.
So yes, one may end up with a little reflective high frequencies from sidealls with standard size waveguide, but it also comes at a cost. Maybe overall it's still better in some situations though. Difficult to say. It will be room dependent I imagine. But nothing comes with a free lunch. With a horn that has less beaming and controlled directivity down to 400 Hz, the result is much better. Still not as uniform as the CBT, but with a speaker with less room interaction and overall quite good power response in both planes. Vertically it needs broadband treatment.
Last edited:
Well someone pointed out that the results of the test weren't statistically significant anyway. Then someone mentioned CBTs, Earl Geddes joined in and things went along from Orion-bashing to the usual "what is the best radiation pattern" question
Maybe I should set up a CBT36 vs. Geddes test.Well someone pointed out that the results of the test weren't statistically significant anyway. Then someone mentioned CBTs, Earl Geddes joined in and things went along from Orion-bashing to the usual "what is the best radiation pattern" question
Or Behringer Truth B2030A vs. Geddes.
Maybe I should set up a CBT36 vs. Geddes test.
Or Behringer Truth B2030A vs. Geddes.
You have all those speakers on hand?
Yes.
I also want to add something to what I wrote recently. Was too late to edit the message.
With the CBT the floor reflection is a benefit. It is coupled to the floor and the reflection contributes what is effectively the other half of the CBT. So it negates the need for a full arc. This is a great advantage. It effectively eliminates the need for floor treatment that is problematic at best. Especially as any floor treatment typically exhibits a such a high frequency profile as to not be effective as broadband absorption for a traditional speaker. A bare broadband reflective floor surface is optimal.
The vertical disperion of a full CBT arc is 45 degrees. Therefore I am thinking that when placed on the floor, that the upward tilt would be restricted to 1/2 that. Thus from the horizontal plane it would only be a 22.5 degree upward distribution. As such, this effectively eliminates early ceiling reflections until well behind the typical listening position and thus eliminates the need for ceiling treatment, unlike typical loudspeakers.
The CBT benefits from a near uniform 180 degree power response and a constrained vertical distribution. In both axes it avoids a collapsing polar power response, which so typical of other designs.
http://www.xlrtechs.com/dbkeele.com/images/Card Back Large.png
And in all cases, the soundstage of the CBT offers an improvement over traditional speakers, as not only is the power response uniform over the horzontal plane, substantially increasing usable listening positions or eliminating many of the typical constraints that limit listening positons, and the limitations of a nearfield response due to destructive driver interaction (superposition) are effectively rendered moot.
You think you are only the one to understand that? What is a point source CD dipole after all?
the (genuine) question is, what would the WG proponents do IF it was possible to design a compact (read: one you can sell..) WG going as low as 100hz.. Woud they still keep the omni pattern and argue (without too much evidence actually) that below 1khz it's not that important?
If I had to give up on dipoles and go "narrow", I would on paper choose the Synergy, but hey, I know nothing..
it does, why is it not done is the question! however, wouldn't the cardioid still be too wide?
...Apparently he is one of the few!
As some still persist in positing benefits to a dipole in a bounded environment!
But most have heard of (and heard) Bose . . . which does pretty much the same thing for pretty much the same reasons.
No surprise that . . . it’s not at all hard these days to design and build speakers that are reasonably flat on-axis (we have good “tone controls” now, too) and with inaudible (masked) distortion (cf Geddes). That speakers still “sound different” in the listening room leaves . . . the room itself, and the power response/polar pattern of the speaker exciting the room. So that’s what we end up talking about. And it generally divides us into two camps: the “exclude the room” (narrow polar) group (who tend to listen to “studio” and HT types of “synthetic” sound); and the “include the room” (omni and dipole) group (who tend to listen to “acoustic” (typically “classical”) music and want “high fidelity” reproduction of that “original sound”).Well someone pointed out that the results of the test weren't statistically significant anyway. Then someone mentioned CBTs, Earl Geddes joined in and things went along from Orion-bashing to the usual "what is the best radiation pattern" question
That’s not what I heard, nor do I see how it could be the case regarding horizontal dispersion.
Perhaps because some of us have heard them?
If you find a cardioid is still too wide you could tune its polar response to a super/hypercardioid.