Then why are you here?
That's not entirely how it works; argument from authority.
People often quote Toole as if his work is gospel, but it lacks in some areas, and a lot of that comes down to preference. I could care less that X% of people prefer something if I don't.
Very wideband coaxes with much better directivity control and less compromise.
Multi-Entrant Horn, a la Unity or Synergy.
To learn and exchange views and findings, certainly not to argue.
If you don’t care about what other people prefer why do you get upset enough to accuse me of being a Toole fool? Please don’t paint me with that brush, I have personally great difficulty with followers that have read only the Cliff-notes and think they’ve seen the light.
Thank you for your response re the MEH versus, coaxes, I am toying with the beginnings of my first MEH using 2x15” BMS and 455 right now and wanted to know how you think they compare for home hifi use.
If you don’t care about what other people prefer why do you get upset enough to accuse me of being a Toole fool? Please don’t paint me with that brush, I have personally great difficulty with followers that have read only the Cliff-notes and think they’ve seen the light.
Thank you for your response re the MEH versus, coaxes, I am toying with the beginnings of my first MEH using 2x15” BMS and 455 right now and wanted to know how you think they compare for home hifi use.
I did no such thing. Your reading and comprehension needs work.
Likewise, keep your projections about me to yourself.
Last edited:
MEH is an informal (US?) slang, usually as an expression of lacking enthusiasm for something someone has said. 
However, in the present context, it's an abbreviation of "multiple entry horn." Of various deisgns, Danley's Synery seems to be the most discussed here. For several years I've been quite happy listening to a sort of bastard ancestor of them, the Yorkville Unity U15.
However, in the present context, it's an abbreviation of "multiple entry horn." Of various deisgns, Danley's Synery seems to be the most discussed here. For several years I've been quite happy listening to a sort of bastard ancestor of them, the Yorkville Unity U15.
Anyways... back to the originally scheduled program. ;-)
Getting rid of interference effects in both the horizontal and the vertical plane should also make the coaxial speaker sound less dependent on room reflections. In other words, not having those frequency-dependent voids in the vertical plane should make the impact of reflections less frequency and position dependent. For a fixed listening position the frequency response you hear would depend less on the surface treatment/reflectivity, and likewise the frequency response would also be less dependent on where you are in the room (because those vertical holes no longer exist).
I'm talking about holes like in this plot at 2kHz/30 degree (courtesy Amir at audiosciencereview.com):
Getting rid of interference effects in both the horizontal and the vertical plane should also make the coaxial speaker sound less dependent on room reflections. In other words, not having those frequency-dependent voids in the vertical plane should make the impact of reflections less frequency and position dependent. For a fixed listening position the frequency response you hear would depend less on the surface treatment/reflectivity, and likewise the frequency response would also be less dependent on where you are in the room (because those vertical holes no longer exist).
I'm talking about holes like in this plot at 2kHz/30 degree (courtesy Amir at audiosciencereview.com):
Yes, that is exactly how science works - published research and science papers, not argument from authority!
Please share research and science papers which that says otherwise. I am genuinely interested in this subject.
For real. I've been using them (Unitys) as my main speakers since 08 and they weren't new then. A search will turn up many threads.
Reading through this thread I'm seeing no love for the venerable Altec 604, its variants and offshoots. There is a good reason why this type of speaker was the monitor and mastering mainstay for many decades.
I'm especially a fan of the Urei monitor branch of that tree and the non-Altec B series in particular. The Ed Long Time Aligned crossovers made a huge leap in coherency, although at the expense of some overall sensitivity due to high insertion loss for the networks.
This is a re-housed Urei 811A and they sound wonderful.
The single duplex will run out of gas around 45Hz. The larger models with helper woofers can go a bit lower, but for those who crave EDM and hip-hop with extended bottom a sub would be needed.
I'm especially a fan of the Urei monitor branch of that tree and the non-Altec B series in particular. The Ed Long Time Aligned crossovers made a huge leap in coherency, although at the expense of some overall sensitivity due to high insertion loss for the networks.
This is a re-housed Urei 811A and they sound wonderful.
The single duplex will run out of gas around 45Hz. The larger models with helper woofers can go a bit lower, but for those who crave EDM and hip-hop with extended bottom a sub would be needed.
I'm fond of the Tannoy dual concentrics. I've owned the 12" and still own a pair of 15"s (had both at the same time, sold the 12"s and kept the 15"s because they were better in every way but WAF). They've stayed in rotation when I've dabbled with different speakers (typically my on again, off again love affair with planars), but never going far. They're keepers for me especially after reconing (the spiders in the older Tannoys get so soft that the Qms becomes very high even with new surrounds making the Qts unusably high in anything but a large sealed box). There's just something a 15" DC does very well that very few other speakers can approach, certainly non-point sources. Zero minimum listening distance, fantastic imaging and that big 15" cone gives the appropriate weight to the lower midrange and midbass that smaller drivers just cannot do. Get a pair set up right and listen to something that requires dynamic scale and weight like a piano recording and very few speakers can touch it. Coaxials that have a separate treble horn in the middle just don't have the same integration, to me, always sounding a bit off compared to the Tannoys.
Unfortunately, they're not perfect, hence why they're not my mains. Mine have the alcomax magnet, which gives the horn much better geometry than the newer models with the shallower ceramic magnets. Unfortunately, they have the "PepperPot" phase plug from the 1940s that's over half a century out of date. Between that and the older horn contour, they have a pretty nasty honk on axis that can only be addressed by listening about 10-15 degrees off-axis (ie solving it by not toeing them in). However, that knocks down the treble response up high and makes it a bit more ragged as well. So, it's a trade-off. The older crossover design is less than ideal and makes them change over between drivers a bit less than ideal. Most importantly, using the cone as part of the horn, clever as the idea is (something I do really appreciate about them) means that bass excursion does audibly and, yes, measurably muddy up the midrange. The biggest upgrade I ever found with my DCs was to properly integrate a subwoofer with them to relieve the cone of the bass, even the 15" model. Really did a lot to clean up the midrange (I no longer have the measurements due to a dead computer, but it was a not insignificant reduction in measured THD for whatever the mechanism may have been even if it was just keeping the VC in the more linear region of the gap) and helped with the integration to the tweeter. Just made them whole new, much better speakers. Tannoy understood this weakness, which is why their best models, the Kingdom series, did the same thing by adding a separate bass driver to handle everything below 120Hz.
Unfortunately, they're not perfect, hence why they're not my mains. Mine have the alcomax magnet, which gives the horn much better geometry than the newer models with the shallower ceramic magnets. Unfortunately, they have the "PepperPot" phase plug from the 1940s that's over half a century out of date. Between that and the older horn contour, they have a pretty nasty honk on axis that can only be addressed by listening about 10-15 degrees off-axis (ie solving it by not toeing them in). However, that knocks down the treble response up high and makes it a bit more ragged as well. So, it's a trade-off. The older crossover design is less than ideal and makes them change over between drivers a bit less than ideal. Most importantly, using the cone as part of the horn, clever as the idea is (something I do really appreciate about them) means that bass excursion does audibly and, yes, measurably muddy up the midrange. The biggest upgrade I ever found with my DCs was to properly integrate a subwoofer with them to relieve the cone of the bass, even the 15" model. Really did a lot to clean up the midrange (I no longer have the measurements due to a dead computer, but it was a not insignificant reduction in measured THD for whatever the mechanism may have been even if it was just keeping the VC in the more linear region of the gap) and helped with the integration to the tweeter. Just made them whole new, much better speakers. Tannoy understood this weakness, which is why their best models, the Kingdom series, did the same thing by adding a separate bass driver to handle everything below 120Hz.
Yes ...
So it seems that many Coaxial driver manufactures have realized their product as being best for -
upper bass - mid & tops. Let's hope there will some new & great drivers coming in the near future.
It is my thought that 'point source' speakers are probably the best for center & surround speakers
in very good Home Cinema setups.
What do people think about ideal center & surround speakers?
So it seems that many Coaxial driver manufactures have realized their product as being best for -
upper bass - mid & tops. Let's hope there will some new & great drivers coming in the near future.
It is my thought that 'point source' speakers are probably the best for center & surround speakers
in very good Home Cinema setups.
What do people think about ideal center & surround speakers?
I hope this isn't too off-topic. I'd been contemplating buying a pair of Danley SM60F. I finally chased down a dealer and got a quote: $4250 each. Plus tax. Plus shipping. I'm not certain, but just a few years ago they were closer to $2500. You could get the SH50 for $4000-ish. Yet another data point that the long period of apaprently low inflation has drawn to a close. I do believe I'll keep the Yorkville U15s for a while longer....but I would jump on a used pair or similar probably.
Plus tax. Plus shipping. I'm not certain, but just a few years ago they were closer to $2500. You could get the SH50 for $4000-ish. Yet another data point that the long period of apaprently low inflation has drawn to a close. I do believe I'll keep the Yorkville U15s for a while longer....but I would jump on a used pair or similar probably.