Don't worry, it was the raw array output with only some basic correction but before applying DSP. The end result after applying EQ (a necessary 'evil' on these type of arrays) and adding the subs will look different. It will be closer to representing a true Dirac pulse, aside from it's start and stop bands and using an in-room target.
No kidding. Every loudspeaker is a large set of compromises. The Art of speaker design is choosing the set of compromises that best suit the goal.
I guess we are at about 20% of the way to ehat we can do, one could take a set of 10 of the best loudspeakers in the world, all valid designs, yet all sound different.
dave
Have you heard one with the XO done as the XO designer wuld have preferred. A speaker doomed from the start.
dave
The Pluvia 7HD is an evolution of the A7.3, A7ms represents the first step into monoSuspension for something larger than a 4”. It has had mixed reception. I have not listened to it enuff to judge yet.
dave
Last edited:
Hmm, 'reasonable', not IME WRT such a 'wide band'
observation, so best IME is to choose based on what one prizes most WRT high SQ/'accurate' frequency response, i.e. best (extreme) HF, voices, mean of these, etc.. Most folks choose the telephone BWs (250-2500 Hz analog, 300-3000 Hz digital) whether they realize it or not, so at least 250-3 kHz typically first and foremost. Regardless, your choices sets both piston (Sd) sizes, ergo spacing, leaving the XO to ideally be at a matching polar response or at least close enough when the 1/4 WL spacing (up to 1 WL depending on how far away one normally listens) is factored in.
In short, sounds easy enough, but nowadays there's way too many to (easily) choose from and since we all hear the same, yet not so much it's a 'crap shoot' at best IME, so choosing based on response, impedance plots is as good as any way for me when helping others with their speaker designs, which to date I've had a pretty good 'track record' AFAIK, though of course all disclaimers apply!
I doubt it, the one I heard was the first iteration of that speaker I'm fairly sure because it was new at the time I heard it at Axpona.
C'mon, what's the holdup?
You still have the FH3 prototype boxes?
I do. With the correct supraBaffle. I need to measure and sort my A7ms. Lots of stuff i need to do.
dave
It would be nearly impossible to have an apples to apples debate here when really the debate is "do we need oranges when apples taste so good". The AR9 mid is more like a dome mid anyhow than it is a wide-range speaker.Having been 'immersed' in various 755 apps from earliest age this is an 'apples n' oranges' comparison at best if for no other reason than the AR9 used a dedicated 1.9 cm/~0.75" dia. super tweeter for 'fill' - 'top end 'air'. Disconnecting it, leaving a 3.8 cm/~1.5" mid/tweet is a close enough 'ballpark' comparison though that in retrospect wished I'd done such when I could have, but was/am too 755 centric (especially the original FC) by then to give 'two hoots n' holler'
I'm still not following you re: higher cost and technical performance, and resonances.
Consider for instance the Eminence Alpha. To improve high frequency performance (let's agree 1kHz is wide band here), the VC is small and the cone is light. In bass simulations, the 12" (iirc) seems almost broken, requiring 100s of litres (sealed!) for its full potential. I haven't heard such a setup but I imagine it could have amazingly natural ear-hugging bass (given the high VAS, large box, high efficiency, high QMS).
However, I would probably go for the more manageable Eminence Beta or similar. The tweeter is still wide open. I'm pleased with the 3.5" metal Mark Audio drivers I have. While my experimental current amps are in storage I've started to always add 10-20 ohm resistors in series with my class d chip amps, which has consistently made every driver I own sound a little bit better.
Resonances are big conversation. There's a thread on high QMS, and my take-away from it was that mechanical damping tends to convert amplitude irregularities into harmonics and intermodulation. So you gain one thing but lose another.
Agree 100%. Not sure why everything needs yo turn into trash talking. We all love audio, that's obvious. And I'm seriously not married to any ideology, I just go based on what I've heard and done. I love music, I love stereos, and I'm definitely down to listen to new ideas.
Being completely transparent, the best sounding system I've ever sat in front of was 15" horn loaded woofers, with huge horn tweeters and plasma super tweeters. The newest driver in that system was probably 1970. He used tube amp and preamp, and a crazy turntable (that he made). You could grab the music out of the air, was just spectacular sounding. And I'm not a "horn guy", but I'm also honest enough to admit what I just said. A lot of you guys probably know him or know of him, but I'll ask if he's ok with it before I drop his name.
Actually I'm going to just assume he's good with me saying his name... I just know he wouldn't enjoy getting into the middle of an argument. It's Andy Bouman from Vintage Tube Services. He designed and built the whole system using old, original Altec, or Wharfdale, or Jenson (don't recall exactly) drivers. Don't remember who made the plasma tweeters. I was seriously shocked at how amazing it sounded, and I've sat in front of the best the world has to offer at any price.
I do know it was an older Cary tube amp, but don't remember the preamp. The turntable was a weird dual platter job (one platter spun the other) with a crazy, oddly articulating tone arm. Don't remember which cartridge.
Funny thing is, he got a reel-to-reel, some special massive one, and I was super excited to hear that because I've never heard a reel-to-reel, only read about them. I actually much preferred his turntable in his system.
He won't play anything digital, he's very much analog only. FTR, I am not that way, but I definitely appreciate his talent and his brain, was honestly an amazing system to sit in front of and he knows a LOT about the audio industry. I will have to ask if he's ok with me posting pics of it.
Hence a ~same-same comparison if you look at a 755's mechanically XO'd three way diaphragm.
