Yet another "Best Loudspeaker" comercial design..

[AnalolgAlley]

Ah gosh folks, I'm new here but how can you comment on anything other than aesthetics without listening to them?

[ScottG]

Originally posted by AnalolgAlley
Ah gosh folks, I'm new here but how can you comment on anything other than aesthetics without listening to them?

After designing and prototyping for a while you get a "feel" for measurements and the resulting sound. Its an art form based on science.

Also, you are typically exposed to many of the drivers (or VERY similar variants) in use, (..perhaps not purchased, but rather listened to in other designs to see if you even want to contemplate purchasing the drivers).

For instance I for one do NOT like the "base" sound of the Danish ring tweeters in use in this design. They have fairly good clarity.. but I find the sound they reproduce, (in several designs both expensive and inexpensive), artificial at best. And by "artificial" I mean 2d as opposed to 3d, (not so much with regard to image location but rather image presentation), and compressed in sound (..which isn't a surprise considering the surround is the diaphragm). Additionally, the lack of top octave response off-axis I find very noticeable, but then I hear rather higher in freq. than most males (..and its VERY annoying walking into stores with crappy lights).

[ScottG]

Originally posted by AJinFLA


I find the use of a XT ring radiator loaded by a silver WG to stroke of genius. Big brained Einstein style.

Ah, but thats been done before.. and I wonder by whom?

Also the implementation is week in this design. (..at least for a typical in-home setup.)

Consider that the midbass driver's he is crossing over to aren't beaming significantly at the crossover (only marginally). Also the waveguide is quite shallow and effects a relatively small passband. The transition then within a 60 degree window is moderately flat at 2 meters, BUT still exhibits a dip in response as an average near the crossover region. IF the designer is looking for a flat freq. response in this listening window then he has "missed" it.. However..

I think the reviewer basically nailed this design - its STRICTLY a control monitor for mastering recordings. i.e. designed for almost near field listening, less interference from console reflections due to the mtm, flat response, etc.. I also wouldn't be surprised if the speaker's linear decay was pretty good.

[phn]

Originally posted by Cloth Ears


Hi phn,

I overlaid the 2 (ignore the scale on the side, it's not correct for both) after adjusting for size. The Stereophile one is in blue. It has more lively 'peaks' and 'dips' - but as I said in my previous post, I'm not sure if the measurements have been smoothed for the "Best Loudspeaker". I know they have been 'adjusted' in the Stereophile, but I don't think JA smooths them very much...

Tenson, it is a silly claim. But I don't think that the THD+N is average. Check the latest Quads (in Stereophile, I think) for amazing claims against incredible distortion...

Thanks. I kind of had the frequency response, but gave the Dynaudios some slack for having a better frequency response. Phase and other measurements are what got me. I wouldn't know what constitutes "good" in most of them.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean with "adjusted." I sort of know what you mean. But what impressed me about the Dynaudios is that they measure much better than the other ultra high-price speakers, like the Mårten Design Coltrane, reviewed by Stereophile. So if the Dynaudios are adjusted (as in looking better?), how "bad" then are the other speakers?

[DSP_Geek]

Originally posted by phn
Thanks. I kind of had the frequency response, but gave the Dynaudios some slack for having a better frequency response.

Look at all the Dynaudio curves: the little on-axis hole around 4.3 kHz fills in away from on-axis, so the room response ends up being flat in that range. The same effect holds to a lesser degree for the small hole around 1.8 kHz, so the sum result is an impressively flat in-rrom response.

Phase and other measurements are what got me. I wouldn't know what constitutes "good" in most of them.

Electrical phase means nothing at all. VERY few magazines measure acoustic phase. The only indication I ever saw was a Stereophile (if I recall correctly) test, which showed the square wave output of a large Dunlavy.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean with "adjusted." I sort of know what you mean. But what impressed me about the Dynaudios is that they measure much better than the other ultra high-price speakers, like the Mårten Design Coltrane, reviewed by Stereophile. So if the Dynaudios are adjusted (as in looking better?), how "bad" then are the other speakers?

The Stereophile subjective reviews point out the problem with sighted non-comparison reviews: it's very easy to get seduced by a particular colouration if there's no reference to live music.

[Cloth Ears]

Originally posted by phn
I'm not sure I understand what you mean with "adjusted."

From the article, the description for that measurement, and the word I should have used is 'corrected' (oops):

"Dynaudio Temptation, anechoic response on axis midway between the two tweeters at 50", averaged across 30 degrees horizontal window and corrected for microphone response, with the complex sum of the nearfield midrange, woofer, and port responses plotted below 300Hz."

I'm not particularly enamoured of Stereophiles reviews, but I think JA does a good job of measuring stuff. I do think he takes too much time trying to justify the short-comings he might find in his measurements, though.

[cowanrg]

there's a lot of talk about these speakers, but has anyone actually HEARD them?

i have, a couple of times. they do sound good, and very neutral. however, they are absolutely lifeless and not involving at all. after a couple of minutes, they just bore you. plus, they lack dynamics and speed (where are those graphs)

they have the same problem most high end speakers have. they had a designer who thought throwing tons of money at a design would make it sound better. so he thought of the most expensive way to make a cabinet. well, it is pricey, but it doesnt look very nice, and it doesnt sound good either. for the price, the thing looked bad. the joints werent all that well done, the finish was poor, and they just looked boring.

are you guys surprised? its just another overly expensive cabinet, off the shelf drivers, and a ridiculous claim. i mean, how many of these threads do we need? yeah, another guy thought he was the audiophile's gift to loudspeaker design and he was wrong. this happens daily in the audio world.