You have said yourself that setting up speakers at demos is very diffcult and you have stopped going to shows because of it.
I have heard negative reviews of your speakers from a demos like that. Which speaker it was, Summa, Abbey or Nathan I don't know but I never mentioned that specifically in my post either. Look at my post again.
To call my a liar is very dissapointing and shows a complete lack of courtesy.
It seems you are attacking me because I disagree with you on several areas.
Sure. But do you need more then 115-125 dB for indoor? The CBT36 can take peaks of minimum 115 dB (in the highest treble) and higher as the frequency goes down. Distortion is very low.Indoor use as well
And like someone mentioned earlier, this depends on the drivers used in the CBT design. No problem to use drivers with higher sensitivity.
I changed the post, but the fact remains that making up things to support your argument (especially when they are offensive and derogatory to someone else) is very unprofessional.
Link us to the bad reviews - no Geddes Speaker has been shown in public in about 8 years. None of what I sell now have ever been shown. Your simply making it up.
It has nothing to do with SPL, its the "dynamics". Efficient loudspeakers simply have better dynamics because they have lower thermal modulation. It's quite easy to show.
Its like a V-8 versus an I-4 one has better "dynamics" than the other.
I'm not making it up. I have seen someone comment at a forum that they didn't like the sound from one of your demos. Is that so hard to believe?
Your commented that the CBTs were only for those who liked early reflections. I showed an example of the opposite and with an explanation that a waveguide/horn would actually have a total of more early reflections.
The information you are giving on the CBTs are wrong.
I'm aware of that if we are talking about dynamics alone. I don't how the CBT36 measures in that area, but like previously mentioned I subjectively experience them as being more dynamic then Abbey. That's not an objective statement, but simply my experience.
I went back and looked at the "offending" post:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/177403-linkwitz-orions-beaten-behringer-what-76.html
Just what is offensive and derogatory?
In what respect is he "making things up"?
Is he professional, in the "loudspeaker" business?
Yeah, it is. You can't just go around claiming derogatory things about someone's product that are not true. If its true show me where.
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.
Last edited:
They inspired advanced discussions.
But really, if you look at the Orions, using back and front wave interaction to control directivity could up good in general published measurements, but has anyone looked at individual frequencies at the 1M distance and viewed the harmonic content? In listening, all sources of diffraction and reflections will make a difference, the difference can show up as some might describe as fuzziness, defocused, softened, etc. This can be good or bad depending on the amplifier and what appears upstream of the speakers. They can mask deficiencies sensitive to the ear, thus may appear to sound better; technically it has a similar effect in concept of using multiple subs in a room to obtain a certain sound balance by controlling how various source waves are combined.
The Behringer, I had listened to after this thread started. I believe that design can be further improved if it took care in amplifier design, selection of drivers, better amp/speaker interface. Personally, I would not use that kind of enclosure design because the bass will sound loose without the feeling of the lower end below 50Hz. But this guess is just based on listening to it. I think it's a pity because having gotten to this level, it does not cost too much recurring cost to make the jump in sound quality, it does take more development effort though.
Last edited:
I have VERY seldom found any speaker to sound good at ANY show. I even wonder why the companies care to show up if they do not want to take the time to get the best possible sound during the show.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.
Soongsc, I have a few time and been quite delighted. It's a minority, but it exists. Oddly, many speaker designers do not know ow to set up speakers at a show. They really don't.
You don't? You've complained on this very forum about the lack of interest you've gotten at shows. Weren't you at RMAF and even LSAF a few years back?
Quite agree and that's what I heard (and smelled) with the CBT. You can hear the speaker cone when they get loud, you can smell the resistors when they get hot. But considering the size of the speaker, it does very well. For most domestic use I think it will play loud enough.
Still no love for IMP around here, I can see
It's tough without detailed info on the design.
IF we had that then I suspect that a few people would "knock-out" a copy and try it out.
Yeah the NOLA is a real head scratcher.
I've heard it a few times and I'm always mystified by why/how it sounds so good.
Clearly the dipole radiation pattern has something to do with, but the numerous midranges and tweeters are a mystery. I asked the designer about it and he didn't seem interested in giving away any info.
It's tough without detailed info on the design.
IF we had that then I suspect that a few people would "knock-out" a copy and try it out.
Weird isn't it? A speaker that beat the Orion several years ago....
And there is no info to be found.
I agree, we've probably spent too much time fixated on the speaker that came in third!
Here's some info on Gary Eickmeier from the internet:
https://secure.aes.org/forum/pubs/conventions/?ID=52
"The authors say that they will be doing future studies of radiation patterns and speaker positioning and would welcome input from the membership. Sigfried Linkwitz has challenged the membership to find the ultimate radiation pattern, speaker positioning, and room characteristics for stereophonic reproduction. I wrote a paper in October of 1989 that did not get published that answers all of these questions, and I would like to have my suggestions included in any future studies, but there is no directory of members' Email addresses so I can talk to anyone.
My paper was "An Image Model Theory for Stereophonic Sound", preprint 2869,
AES E-Library An Image Model Theory for Stereophonic Sound
and it gives the basis for the selection of "The Big Three" (radiation pattern, speaker positioning, and room acoustics) and my resultant choice for all three. The importance and urgency to communicate my suggestions is that others may not have considered my Big Three in any testing, and the problem is that if you get any one of them wrong, the whole image collapses and you would not know how close you are to the answer.
The paper proposes a different way of looking at stereophonic sound (the realistic reproduction of auditory perspective) that has been hinted at in previous work but never completely solved. I wish to correspond with whoever might be interested. I consider this a most important topic, and one of the last questions to be answered in audio engineering.
Gary Eickmeier"
Here is Eickmeier's paper, "An Image Model Theory for Stereophonic Sound"
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0T...NhMC00MDFjLTk0MzUtY2NkZjU2M2ViMDYw/edit?hl=en
https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B0T...NhMC00MDFjLTk0MzUtY2NkZjU2M2ViMDYw/edit?hl=en
Thats some small print. I can't read it.
I see the drawings but I can't make out what the descriptions are.