And not unlike a commercial family style buffet,.....it’s 99% inedible garbage void of any real flavor or taste......
Innovation?.....how bout a crushing blow, a nail in the coffin,.....i could go on.
Not innovation in any sense of the term......classic exploitation.
Albeit the actual artist and artistry, now the only earning potential is live performance on grand scales......notice those little circus performers and the hugely inflated ticket prices?........
I keep waiting for the music industry to fight back against the black veil of accessibility which is essentially legal piracy......fractional pennies otherwise worthless from a virtual jukebox......... a business model box containing millions of pieces and yet no glue to hold it all together......ripe for the picking with anyone with conviction..........
I have owned many speakers, both narrow and wide, and I still own both types.
From purely technical standpoint, there is no question that the narrow baffle has an advantage, and I can clearly hear its advantage, but I still prefer wide baffle speakers on most occasions. Many seasoned audiophiles/designers including Mr. Pass seem to prefer wide ones, and I always wonder why. Wide/large speakers tend to be more efficient, and most probably that is the primary reason, but even comparing ATC and B&W, both lower efficient 3 way speakers, I would choose ATC over B&W any day, and I'm pretty sure that the other people who prefer wide baffle would do the same.
Narrow speakers are disappearing even if the edge is not rounded, and they can instantly produce a magical holographic image in a room, which is a very hard task for wider/large speakers in my experience. Probably impossible. It's probably only me, but I started feeling that this is the reason why I can't love narrow speakers. This illusory holographic image is somewhat unnatural and uncomfortable to me. The image is detached from the room and speakers, and lacks the reality and physicality. I also feel a contradiction between what I hear and what I see. I feel I'm in the MATRIX, a fake world. I'm listening to the artificial and electrified sound data from speakers, and that IS the reality. I just want to hear it with my lovely and imperfect speakers. Since I like my speakers, my room, my diffractions, my circumstances, I can't find any single reason why they should be disappeared while I'm listening to the music. Maybe I think I have to confess I like speakers more than music itself. LOL.
Well, I realized that I enjoy listening to very narrow Dynaudio while I'm writing this, so it's does not really matter after all. Happy Holidays. 🙂
From purely technical standpoint, there is no question that the narrow baffle has an advantage, and I can clearly hear its advantage, but I still prefer wide baffle speakers on most occasions. Many seasoned audiophiles/designers including Mr. Pass seem to prefer wide ones, and I always wonder why. Wide/large speakers tend to be more efficient, and most probably that is the primary reason, but even comparing ATC and B&W, both lower efficient 3 way speakers, I would choose ATC over B&W any day, and I'm pretty sure that the other people who prefer wide baffle would do the same.
Narrow speakers are disappearing even if the edge is not rounded, and they can instantly produce a magical holographic image in a room, which is a very hard task for wider/large speakers in my experience. Probably impossible. It's probably only me, but I started feeling that this is the reason why I can't love narrow speakers. This illusory holographic image is somewhat unnatural and uncomfortable to me. The image is detached from the room and speakers, and lacks the reality and physicality. I also feel a contradiction between what I hear and what I see. I feel I'm in the MATRIX, a fake world. I'm listening to the artificial and electrified sound data from speakers, and that IS the reality. I just want to hear it with my lovely and imperfect speakers. Since I like my speakers, my room, my diffractions, my circumstances, I can't find any single reason why they should be disappeared while I'm listening to the music. Maybe I think I have to confess I like speakers more than music itself. LOL.
Well, I realized that I enjoy listening to very narrow Dynaudio while I'm writing this, so it's does not really matter after all. Happy Holidays. 🙂
This implies a significant broadband dip, so doesn't seem likely, though does make me wonder if you mean 'honk', which is the cupped hand's [horn] boosted variant.
GM
Actually, the closer to walls the higher in frequency, so increasingly weaker reflections [1/f] that quickly dissipate with no audible effect, but the driver can have mass quantities of reflections off the frame and [larger] motors, which can cause 'coloration' that damping the cab walls won't necessarily remove unless stuffed inside the frame cavity, so historically we would mass load/damp the frames as much as practical back on the original 'FR' driver forum before some of the more modern driver designs began designing in solutions that require little/no 'tweaking'.
In short, either the cab needs to be acoustically small for the desired BW or so large that the driver 'feels' only an acoustically high pressure, hence compression horn back chambers and IB being the overall ideal.
GM
GM we got rid of the cuppiness/honk, by increasing the box width by a bit more than a CM (sacrificing some depth).
dave
dave
This thread has been veering all over the road, but interesting...
Going back to Galu's comment in post 2: "those 2 or 3 teeny-weeny bass divers - still no substitute for a single 12" driver" - one advantage of narrow cabs which hasn't been discussed yet is that a row of smaller drivers spreads out the floor bounce frequencies, making for a fuller, more even lower midrange. Modern 6" & 8" drivers are available with low Fs, and large speakers are relatively expensive. (I have the best of both worlds in my main system, with a pair of 6.5" woofers, and a 10" .5 way to give the big sound needed for visceral low frequencies)
Going back to Galu's comment in post 2: "those 2 or 3 teeny-weeny bass divers - still no substitute for a single 12" driver" - one advantage of narrow cabs which hasn't been discussed yet is that a row of smaller drivers spreads out the floor bounce frequencies, making for a fuller, more even lower midrange. Modern 6" & 8" drivers are available with low Fs, and large speakers are relatively expensive. (I have the best of both worlds in my main system, with a pair of 6.5" woofers, and a 10" .5 way to give the big sound needed for visceral low frequencies)
Waveguided tweeter, 5-6" midrange, 8-10" woofer and 2-4 subwoofer with 12-15". Crossed at around 2kHz, 400hz and around 100hz. Then you can both have some volume and still a nice elegant front baffle 😎
The Jordan Watts module was an interesting response to cabinet reflections, amongst other things.
@ Plasnu,
Consider the shape of a flat baffle as a source. There may not be a geometrically perfect source shape to fit a room, and half space in particular could support some of the early reflection points. Once you get these started...
Consider the shape of a flat baffle as a source. There may not be a geometrically perfect source shape to fit a room, and half space in particular could support some of the early reflection points. Once you get these started...
The JW modue was a fascinating device. We got a set in late 1975 from Wilmslow. We put them into a wall-mounted Classic TL. Very coherent, but very coloured.
dave
Understood, but doesn't negate any of what I posted, just ya'll lucked up finding a solution, i.e. apparently it was reflecting off the back wall.
GM
+1 Had a note to self to discuss this, but it's been a much busier than normal holiday time than usual for me.
GM
Spent all day yesterday reading on speakers and came across this;
"One of Spendor’s great strengths was stereo imaging, something that the BBC had a real requirement for. Says Philip Swift, who bought the company in 2001: ‘These were the early days of FM stereo broadcasting. And it’s quite wrong to assume that a narrow baffle gives you a better stereo image.
‘A wide speaker, as near as you can get to being an infinite baffle, ensures that the drive units don’t “see” the edges of the baffle – and that can have a significant advantage for imaging.
‘And a superficially sharpened stereo image is actually brought about by phase inconsistencies created between the main output from the driver and the diffraction effects of the cabinet. You are no longer listening to a sound where the performers are just seamlessly hanging in space as they should be.
‘The Spendor loudspeaker took account of all of these things. Even the shapes of the cutouts in the baffle were designed to minimise any interactions.’ "
How vaild this is I don't know.
"One of Spendor’s great strengths was stereo imaging, something that the BBC had a real requirement for. Says Philip Swift, who bought the company in 2001: ‘These were the early days of FM stereo broadcasting. And it’s quite wrong to assume that a narrow baffle gives you a better stereo image.
‘A wide speaker, as near as you can get to being an infinite baffle, ensures that the drive units don’t “see” the edges of the baffle – and that can have a significant advantage for imaging.
‘And a superficially sharpened stereo image is actually brought about by phase inconsistencies created between the main output from the driver and the diffraction effects of the cabinet. You are no longer listening to a sound where the performers are just seamlessly hanging in space as they should be.
‘The Spendor loudspeaker took account of all of these things. Even the shapes of the cutouts in the baffle were designed to minimise any interactions.’ "
How vaild this is I don't know.
I'm still unable after three years to decide whether they are very good or seriously flawed. The variation in quality from different tracks is enormous, and very disconcerting. Much of what I had always thought were well recorded vocals has now been divided into off mic. muddy, and good, much in the former.
I like using radio because it allows a constant comparison with the past years of knowing tracks, and one is 'off guard' which helps to prevent anticipation bias.
Yesterday listening to R2's oldies, the early eighties single which starts; "Saturday night . . . . " was apparently really well recorded, followed by Faithless's Insomnia which is really rough with poor close up vocals at times.
I'm in a dilemma; are they flawed, and this shows up on many tracks, or are they so good that they reveal that many tracks are flawed?
Attachments
There's absolutely no need to be that condemning.. but such differences between songs can sometimes mean that one set of instruments rides more or less on certain response peaks. If that's true, it might even be room modes rather than the speaker, who could be sure.
We must remember what LS3/5 were compared to! Typical large monitors of the day had driver units spread around the baffle, inducing huge interferences and off-axis variations. So, it's not just the width of the baffle...
and very often set sideways on the mixing desk!
Last edited: