So, I guess we could surmise that current EAD products represent a snapshot of what Ted’s designs were how ever many years ago those transactions took place, while the two models of Eikonas demonstrate that the old fox and his team still had some tricks up their collective sleeves.
It’s perhaps unfortunate that the true facts and timeline of events from that period may never see the light of day. There are at least three sides to every story.
Has anyone tried the Eikona2s in FHXL? That could be interesting
It’s perhaps unfortunate that the true facts and timeline of events from that period may never see the light of day. There are at least three sides to every story.
Has anyone tried the Eikona2s in FHXL? That could be interesting
This is all Colin would say about it http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...ing-front-wall-reflections-3.html#post5222652
At the time of the Jordan J6T and its transformation to a Mark Audio design. Mark was going to buy Jordan but i guess EAD came up with a better “retirement package” for Ted. And then i guess Ted relised that if you retire, you die, and came back for another round.
dave
That might be a little unfair towards EAD. It seems like they are improving on their drivers too, with the HD and MKII versions.
Granted this was when they 1st came out, but i did a comparison of the specs of the original JX92s to the EAD drivers and it seemed to me that one of the higher end drivers was most like the original and that the cheaper driver and the other one were new variations.
I also noted that the published FR had a HF saw-tooth that looked very much like a serious HF resonance (i do note that FR measures are far from the full story).
dave
I also noted that the published FR had a HF saw-tooth that looked very much like a serious HF resonance (i do note that FR measures are far from the full story).
dave
Measurements are important, but we are all too often bombarded with useless specs (ie THD, more), incomplete measurements that can be misleading (ie just on-axis response), and there is just so much still left unmeasured because we have not yet figured it out. Current measures might give small clues but ar efar from comprehensive.
dave
dave
I can agree with that.
The flip side of the coin is total disregard for measurements, which in my opinion is even worse. At least for my own idea of what a sound system should do.
But I respect people that are just in search of a 'good' sound without concern for accuracy.
It's two philosophically separate ways to look at sound reproduction. None of them is right or wrong.
But I strongly side with accuracy.
The flip side of the coin is total disregard for measurements, which in my opinion is even worse. At least for my own idea of what a sound system should do.
But I respect people that are just in search of a 'good' sound without concern for accuracy.
It's two philosophically separate ways to look at sound reproduction. None of them is right or wrong.
But I strongly side with accuracy.
Last edited:
^this
OTOH if we listen to live music we can say what sounds more it less realistic - this is the legitimate goal of sound reproduction - I mean realism, on a small scale at least.
SL means such realism when he writes: "Unbiased listeners have no difficulty recognizing accurate sound reproduction, even with hearing damage or with hearing aids."
It is very interesting that you bring this up. On the opposite side of the spectrum of my sound research journey, the recording, I spent quite a bit of time and energy trying to record music in a way that would sound as realistic as possible during playback.
However, even if the majority of recordings out there have been and are still recorded with audio equipment so different that one would have to listen to each album in the mastering room that they were made on to achieve full accuracy, I do find that for me a system that measures well in terms of accuracy is also one that I tend to prefer over the others, generally speaking.
I think that the reason why many of us are interested in full range drivers, which generally on paper don't measure as well as 2 or 3 way systems (not without further EQ), is that we know that frequency response is not the only thing to look at, and that it only tells you part of the story (besides, there is no standard to measure it either, so...).
Still, between two full ranges, I think that there is merit in looking for the one that measures better, if accuracy is one's end goal.
On the other end, I might be missing something.
Take this driver, for example:
5" SATORI MW13P-4 :: SB Acoustics
It is reported to be a midwoofer, but it measures better than a lot of full ranges.
Is this just a terminology thing or is there something this driver lacks, that can't be seen in the standard measurement graphs, that makes it not viable as a full range?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.