Thanks. I always try and know both sides of every position. I think the crowd that find time alignment a bit of a fools errand makes wonderful points.
When one finds a speaker that sounds good, and recreates the spacial information well, one has to wonder about which of the design goals as stated is responsible for the presentation that sounds pleasing.
I often find myself going down these technical rabbit holes, where you end up with contradictory, well-reasoned positions to compare.
In the end, my Vandersteens are 20 years old, and I have had to repair a woofer, which I suspect is now a bit out of spec. My room also offers wall enforcement behind only one speaker, so a front firing tuned port works better with my room.
I don’t know what the final solution will be.
Seems that while TA is a laudable goal, you typically can't have both that and a flat magnitude response along with it. Some xo topologies can approach that goal (bessel networks) but won't be "perfect" either. Phase coherence/coloration is more important in my thinking of the system as a whole.
Last edited:
And I suppose phase is what this designer has focused on. Still, I have been living with this step response for 20 years.
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
I love the imaging and clarity of these speakers, and can work with the MTM design pretty well in my room. However, I keep hearing some treble trouble, and I don’t know if it is baffle defraction, misaligned step response, or a crossover that doesn’t manage the tweeter well enough.
Certainly there are off-axis positions where the tweeter issues are managed pretty well.
An interesting interview with Joe D'Appolito was made by Hobby HiFi
magazine some 10 years ago in german and the text is copied here:
Interview HOBBY HIFI mit "D'Appolito" - Visaton Diskussionsforum
Google translator helps. In essence, balanced FR on and off axis is on the
first place and then all other things come into consideration.
magazine some 10 years ago in german and the text is copied here:
Interview HOBBY HIFI mit "D'Appolito" - Visaton Diskussionsforum
Google translator helps. In essence, balanced FR on and off axis is on the
first place and then all other things come into consideration.
Last edited:
Yes, my first reservations on having in these in was that the MTM implemented with a first order crossover would make issues worse, particularly in off axis response. My impression of my previous speakers is that they also presented off-axis challenges, so I may be too acclimated to those issues to fully realize.
Some measurements will probably help me visualize.
Exactly. With a few mods you can improve them or have them
improved. I am sure there is enough people here to assist you
if necessary.
Hello everyone,
I am thinking about a FAST (fullranger+woofer) with a first-order crossover. Say, a 8inch woofer and a 3inch FR88EX. And a passive line level XO at 300 Hz.
I am really not sure how much time (mis-)alignment is going to be an issue. There is a rule I've seen that drivers separated by less than 1/4 of wavelength at crossover are practically point-source, which will be satisfied in this design. On the other hand, this design will still have a pathlength difference between two drivers of about 10-15 cm.
Do I need to worry about time-alignment with such FAST?
I am thinking about a FAST (fullranger+woofer) with a first-order crossover. Say, a 8inch woofer and a 3inch FR88EX. And a passive line level XO at 300 Hz.
I am really not sure how much time (mis-)alignment is going to be an issue. There is a rule I've seen that drivers separated by less than 1/4 of wavelength at crossover are practically point-source, which will be satisfied in this design. On the other hand, this design will still have a pathlength difference between two drivers of about 10-15 cm.
Do I need to worry about time-alignment with such FAST?
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.