Probably not. But then, if an unqualified and apparently sweeping statement appears on a thread (for e.g. that all electrostatics, planars and line sources have attenuated HF in practice), then it is very likely that someone will womble along to point this out.
Yes indeed, the Fresnel & Fraunhofer zones vary with frequency, so this is a factor that needs to be accounted for in the design stages of a line source to ensure the listener remains within the nearfield as far as possible. Assuming proper placement & a decent design, there should be no issues with excessive sized images since the in-room power response remains relatively even, and we localise from the region around ear-height, supressing the later-arriving signal. Problems of the nature described are certainly encountered though if the column is too short or the distance to the listener too great.
Yes indeed, the Fresnel & Fraunhofer zones vary with frequency, so this is a factor that needs to be accounted for in the design stages of a line source to ensure the listener remains within the nearfield as far as possible. Assuming proper placement & a decent design, there should be no issues with excessive sized images since the in-room power response remains relatively even, and we localise from the region around ear-height, supressing the later-arriving signal
Last edited:
A reflection arriving later than 1 ms after the direct sound increases the perceived level and spaciousness (more precisely the perceived width of the sound source).
This is lifted from wikipedia. Under haas effect.
I've measured magnepans and Martin logans. These are the most popular panel line sources, the both exhibit attenuation at high frequencies.
I did make a sweeping claim, but I was referring to the comb filtering problem. It exists unless remedied with eq. They do by nature, unless intervened upon.
This is lifted from wikipedia. Under haas effect.
I've measured magnepans and Martin logans. These are the most popular panel line sources, the both exhibit attenuation at high frequencies.
I did make a sweeping claim, but I was referring to the comb filtering problem. It exists unless remedied with eq. They do by nature, unless intervened upon.
That it is. So is this, in reference to what you were discussing until the above post:
A single reflection arriving within 5 to 30 ms can be up to 10 dB louder than the direct sound without being perceived as a secondary auditory event (echo). This time span varies with the reflection level. If the direct sound is coming from the same direction the listener is facing, the reflection's direction has no significant effect on the results.
I don't doubt it (sounds very similar to the the measures I've also seen of various MLs & Magnepans), but that reflects the fact that their designers did not choose to provide a flat response under xyz conditions for a variety of reasons. It does not hold that because the aforementioned have attenuated HF, all others of the same general type automatically must exhibit the same. That would be like claiming that because you have opened the bonnet of two cars and discovered they run on petrol, all cars must necessarily run on said fuel. Which would be news to many people who drive cars that run on diesel.
As an aside, whether the above are even classified as line sources is somewhat open to question -most of the time, ESLs, ribbons & assorted planar types are categorised separately. A further point to mention is that many such transducers, be they large panels or small individual tweeters, don't actually motor up all that high anyway. Some do, some don't, same as anything else. Not in all cases, as anyone who runs a well designed multiway line source knows perfectly well. And if, for e.g., a line source based around small wideband drivers is designed, which do generally require Eq, so what? It has been anticipated, and corrected. Therefore, it is by definition, not an issue.
Last edited:
The Quad 57 is a 2-way (2 bass panels + 1 treble panel). A good pair sounds fine within its limitations, but they can vary by a very wide range depending on condition. I've owned at least 5 pair.
My buddy has a stacked pair. Chris & i went over with a pair of uFonken. We preferred them over his Quads.
dave
ref Toole. Comb filtering looks bad on a graph (see Taylor's LA paper), but the ear/brain is expecting it so it is not as bad a problem as the charts make it out to be.
dave
That's not true. A true continuous line source - for example a single long ribbon does not suffer from comb filtering in the way that a "line source" made from many closely spaced discrete drivers (such as individual dome tweeters) does.
The comb filtering on an array of discrete drivers is clearly based upon the inter-driver centre to centre spacing - the closer this spacing is, the higher the frequency before the onset of comb filtering, but comb filtering will always exist at some high enough frequency unless the gaps between driver diaphragms is zero.
A single continuously radiating line source does not have individual driver to driver spacing, nor diaphragm gaps, thus there is no comb filtering.
I want to add that I thought that the FF125WK sounded really pretty nice in its official factory enclosure (I listened to the whole FFxxWK series in their available-in-Japan-only ready made enclosures while in Tokyo a while ago). Indeed the curve isn't perfect but the thing is damn musical unfiltered - which surprised me.
I liked the FF125WK most, then the 105WK (quite similar but a bit less bass of course). I also liked the bigger ones, nicely musical and unfatigueing despite the curves, but they are best partnered with a tweeter. I did like the FF85WK least (sorry Dave), on its own it sounded like a computer speaker. But I can imagine that it will be good when partnered with a woofer. Hence you may want to check it out for the line array project, budget permitting.
I also thought that this series sounded SIGNIFICANTLY better and more musical than the well known FExx6E series which I think are big on dynamics at the expense of subtlety and tone.
So I bought a pair of the 125 when over there and when I go back I will likely buy the factory enclosures for them (as unfortunately, speaker DIY is difficult in the condo where I now live for the coming 2 years).
I liked the FF125WK most, then the 105WK (quite similar but a bit less bass of course). I also liked the bigger ones, nicely musical and unfatigueing despite the curves, but they are best partnered with a tweeter. I did like the FF85WK least (sorry Dave), on its own it sounded like a computer speaker. But I can imagine that it will be good when partnered with a woofer. Hence you may want to check it out for the line array project, budget permitting.
I also thought that this series sounded SIGNIFICANTLY better and more musical than the well known FExx6E
series which I think are big on dynamics at the expense of subtlety and tone.So I bought a pair of the 125 when over there and when I go back I will likely buy the factory enclosures for them (as unfortunately, speaker DIY is difficult in the condo where I now live for the coming 2 years).
Last edited:
Could have been the Fostex factory box. Even in a good box they are lacking bass, but they do everything else so well.
dave
Counter argument to a question of the overly large virtual image that's presented by line arrays would be the fact that a point source loudspeaker will dwarf the size of an instrument or an orchestra. It can be very easily recognized by comparing line array presentation and a point source presentation with similar frequency response at the listening position. My guess is that for people who actually go and listen to live music, preference between point source and a line array will depend on a preferred seating at the life performance.
It is a reasonably tuned BR box, nothing magic there, it is just that they did sound a lot smaller and leaner than even the 105 variant. Yes, I also had the impression that they do a lot of things well, but I would personally never use them as a standalone fullrange driver, I want my music to have some body in the low frequencies. I am curious how they would be in a FAST configuration though, only used from say 300 hz upwards.
Having heard a few Magneplanars, I do prefer their large image over the dwarfish image of many speakers ! However I also think that a good fullrange speaker at enough distance will also give a nice 3D image, but unlike a magneplanar it shifts ramatically when you stand up.
Attachments
I want to add that I thought that the FF125WK sounded really pretty nice in its official factory enclosure (I listened to the whole FFxxWK series in their available-in-Japan-only ready made enclosures while in Tokyo a while ago). Indeed the curve isn't perfect but the thing is damn musical unfiltered - which surprised me.
I liked the FF125WK most, then the 105WK (quite similar but a bit less bass of course). I also liked the bigger ones, nicely musical and unfatigueing despite the curves, but they are best partnered with a tweeter. I did like the FF85WK least (sorry Dave), on its own it sounded like a computer speaker. But I can imagine that it will be good when partnered with a woofer. Hence you may want to check it out for the line array project, budget permitting.
I also thought that this series sounded SIGNIFICANTLY better and more musical than the well known FExx6E
So I bought a pair of the 125 when over there and when I go back I will likely buy the factory enclosures for them (as unfortunately, speaker DIY is difficult in the condo where I now live for the coming 2 years).
The FF125WK is very nice in the metronome, and I am very, very pleased with them.
I just got another pair in. The 1st pair got scooped up by toobhed for these:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full-range/214301-just-fun-ff105wk-ceramic-fr.html
dave
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.