There are a lot of crappy FRs out there. The best available have reduced these potential issues dramatically.
dave
This is extracted from the link above, Lynn Olson webpage - written in 2002, but is still relevant.
"Since all speakers have serious flaws in the absolute sense, it’s up to you to pick and choose what you want the speaker to do, and how you’re going to accomplish that goal. "Perfect Sound Forever" is a silly marketing slogan, not a realistic goal for an artist or an engineer. For one thing, the materials to build anything of the sort simply don’t exist."
"Since all speakers have serious flaws in the absolute sense, it’s up to you to pick and choose what you want the speaker to do, and how you’re going to accomplish that goal. "Perfect Sound Forever" is a silly marketing slogan, not a realistic goal for an artist or an engineer. For one thing, the materials to build anything of the sort simply don’t exist."
In other words...
There seem to be a number of active threads along the lines of: "Is multi way flawed?", "Are Most Horns Fundamentally Flawed?", and the like.
Short answer: yes, every practical approach to loudspeaker design has inherent limits, and hence it may be regarded as "flawed", if you will.
BUT, that is not the same as to say that any random approach is just as good (or just as bad) as any other. Some non-ideal traits ("flaws") are more easily detected by the human auditory system than others, and ultimately loudspeakers are (or should be) meant to deliver audio for the fruition and enjoyment of human beings. So that's what it boils down to, IMHO, namely: to seek the best set of compromises, rather than become fixated with just one or a small set of design goals while blissfully disregarding others which may be just as important, if not more.
Marco
There seem to be a number of active threads along the lines of: "Is multi way flawed?", "Are Most Horns Fundamentally Flawed?", and the like.
Short answer: yes, every practical approach to loudspeaker design has inherent limits, and hence it may be regarded as "flawed", if you will.
BUT, that is not the same as to say that any random approach is just as good (or just as bad) as any other. Some non-ideal traits ("flaws") are more easily detected by the human auditory system than others, and ultimately loudspeakers are (or should be) meant to deliver audio for the fruition and enjoyment of human beings. So that's what it boils down to, IMHO, namely: to seek the best set of compromises, rather than become fixated with just one or a small set of design goals while blissfully disregarding others which may be just as important, if not more.
Marco
supporters of fullrange drive units favor their 'coherence'. Technically what is coherence? can multi way speakers achieve it and how?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've made extensive posts over at Audiogon dealing exactly with this issue.
They all told me to get lost, **We love adore and worship our low sensitivity xover speakers...** with all the colorations, distortions, resonances, fatigue.
I said OK, find, adious.
Yes xover speakers are flawed.
Plain and simple.
The most glaring flaw is the very fact of low sensitivity.
Then we could continue this list for quite some time.
Lets just deal with the fact that midwoofers are fantastic up to 1800hz, after that, starts stress/resonances, especially if the cone material IS NOT that of magnesium. Which i own, Seas Excel ok upto 1800hz
Now we move on to the Seas Millennium Teeter, great response up to say 3khz. Below that, forget it.
So we have basically the 2khz-3khz **crisis*,smack dab in the most super critcal fq band width.
This is where the music gels, where the magic happens.
High end Wide bands rule as Kings right where xover /low sens types completely fall apart.
Xover types are rendered defunct all due to the new wide band designs.
Such as Tang Band 2145 and davidLouis VX8.
My wide band system includes employing the W18E001 as bass assist, nada mas,
And the paper tweeter as of today has a 8uf cap, taking the paper tweeter down to 5khz.
Just wonderful.
The 2uf was aweful.
All wide bands demand and requirea midwoofer upto say 1600hz and a tweeter down to at least 6khz.
Wide Bands is the speaker to voice a seamless, coherent, huge soundstage , with extrenely low coloration, and super low resonances in that critical band width, 300hz-1400hz.
Here is where midwoofers, paper, carbon, aluminum fall apart.
Magnesium is dead quiet in these fq's. Past 1800hz, now we have distortion.
I know as I ran the W18E001 as full range and sounded crappy. Put the 10uf Mundorf cap back, and sounds wonderful.
Don't expect much bass froma 87db sensitivity driver.
Wide bands have very few *weaknesses*
Whereas low sensitivity types (xover designs) are loaded with more flaws that I have time to discuss.
Troels Gravesen when discussing this issue, cringes at the major issues surrounding the meeting place of midwoofers and tweeters. + note the price tags of the xover parts he employs.
Just a few of his caps in his 2 or 3 ways, is more than what I paid for the DavidLouis VX8.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I've made extensive posts over at Audiogon dealing exactly with this issue.
They all told me to get lost, **We love adore and worship our low sensitivity xover speakers...** with all the colorations, distortions, resonances, fatigue.
I said OK, find, adious.
Yes xover speakers are flawed.
Plain and simple.
The most glaring flaw is the very fact of low sensitivity.
Then we could continue this list for quite some time.
Lets just deal with the fact that midwoofers are fantastic up to 1800hz, after that, starts stress/resonances, especially if the cone material IS NOT that of magnesium. Which i own, Seas Excel ok upto 1800hz
Now we move on to the Seas Millennium Teeter, great response up to say 3khz. Below that, forget it.
So we have basically the 2khz-3khz **crisis*,smack dab in the most super critcal fq band width.
This is where the music gels, where the magic happens.
High end Wide bands rule as Kings right where xover /low sens types completely fall apart.
Xover types are rendered defunct all due to the new wide band designs.
Such as Tang Band 2145 and davidLouis VX8.
My wide band system includes employing the W18E001 as bass assist, nada mas,
And the paper tweeter as of today has a 8uf cap, taking the paper tweeter down to 5khz.
Just wonderful.
The 2uf was aweful.
All wide bands demand and requirea midwoofer upto say 1600hz and a tweeter down to at least 6khz.
Wide Bands is the speaker to voice a seamless, coherent, huge soundstage , with extrenely low coloration, and super low resonances in that critical band width, 300hz-1400hz.
Here is where midwoofers, paper, carbon, aluminum fall apart.
Magnesium is dead quiet in these fq's. Past 1800hz, now we have distortion.
I know as I ran the W18E001 as full range and sounded crappy. Put the 10uf Mundorf cap back, and sounds wonderful.
Don't expect much bass froma 87db sensitivity driver.
Wide bands have very few *weaknesses*
Whereas low sensitivity types (xover designs) are loaded with more flaws that I have time to discuss.
Troels Gravesen when discussing this issue, cringes at the major issues surrounding the meeting place of midwoofers and tweeters. + note the price tags of the xover parts he employs.
Just a few of his caps in his 2 or 3 ways, is more than what I paid for the DavidLouis VX8.
Short answer: yes, every practical approach to loudspeaker design has inherent limits, and hence it may be regarded as "flawed", if you will.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Horns? Stats/ESL/Panels/Concentrics??
WEll all 4 have their issues.
Wide bands?
Issues?
where?
How so?
Low bass response, 40hz is perfectly acceptable for my music/needs
Rool offs past 12khz? Again, my classical music has no snare drums, I only need 12khz-20khz for ambience, sheen.
Wide Bands have the least amount of *flaws/issues/problems* vs any other speaker design.
And WBer have the greatest # of positives.
Sucha cliche term
*all designs have their issues* = flaws.
I hear no flaws with WBers.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Horns? Stats/ESL/Panels/Concentrics??
WEll all 4 have their issues.
Wide bands?
Issues?
where?
How so?
Low bass response, 40hz is perfectly acceptable for my music/needs
Rool offs past 12khz? Again, my classical music has no snare drums, I only need 12khz-20khz for ambience, sheen.
Wide Bands have the least amount of *flaws/issues/problems* vs any other speaker design.
And WBer have the greatest # of positives.
Sucha cliche term
*all designs have their issues* = flaws.
I hear no flaws with WBers.
"Perfect Sound Forever" is a silly marketing slogan
My Wide Band/midwoofer/tweeter system to my hearing is perfect.
And about to get more perfect when i add the Davidlouis VX6 as a 3 way WBer + speaker assist.
Perfection, with no hype, no gimmicks.
Lets say perfect as perfect can be in a speaker system.
My Wide Band/midwoofer/tweeter system to my hearing is perfect.
And about to get more perfect when i add the Davidlouis VX6 as a 3 way WBer + speaker assist.
Perfection, with no hype, no gimmicks.
Lets say perfect as perfect can be in a speaker system.
There are a lot of crappy FRs out there. The best available have reduced these potential issues dramatically.
Indeed.
I prefer to use the term *wide bands* vs the old dated term *Full Range* (taken back from the Fostex/Lowther days of yore)
The only 2 wide bands that I know of which qualify as high end (high fidelity) are the
Tang band 2145
'and
'DavidLouis VX8.
I exclude and intentioanlly eliminate AER and Voxativ as possible choices.
These speakers may be good, they may be trash. I will never know.
Don't want to know.
Most all other Wide bands have some issues which do not make for authentic true wide band speakers.
No have not heard Mark Audio, nor Fostex,
Don't want to.
I have TB2156 and DLVX8, both are stunningly realistic in all fq band widths.
No need to seek further.
As with xover type speakers in the past, here with WBers I am extremely picky and choosey which speakers make my list.
Indeed.
I prefer to use the term *wide bands* vs the old dated term *Full Range* (taken back from the Fostex/Lowther days of yore)
The only 2 wide bands that I know of which qualify as high end (high fidelity) are the
Tang band 2145
'and
'DavidLouis VX8.
I exclude and intentioanlly eliminate AER and Voxativ as possible choices.
These speakers may be good, they may be trash. I will never know.
Don't want to know.
Most all other Wide bands have some issues which do not make for authentic true wide band speakers.
No have not heard Mark Audio, nor Fostex,
Don't want to.
I have TB2156 and DLVX8, both are stunningly realistic in all fq band widths.
No need to seek further.
As with xover type speakers in the past, here with WBers I am extremely picky and choosey which speakers make my list.
The Art of Speaker Design
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The future, He discusses the idea of *many tiny point source speakers*
I believe I have invented The Future Speaker for the 21st C audiophile
My design employs
either a dual WBer + assist speakers
Or a 3 way WBer with assist.
I need cash to obtain the DLVX6, so as to see ifa trio will work.
Dual 8's such as TB2145 + DLVX8 made the image too thick in midrange.
My current dual WBers employs the DavidLouis W4 and has made a significant developement in soundstage presentation.
My hunch is the VX6 will be even more high fidelity vs the Davidlouis W4....
Which will mean adding a W4 might not be necessary,
The final stage of this developement/experiement will be adding a Tang Band 1878 3 inch as a possible 3rd WBer.
At this point I can safely say a dual WBer is superior to a single WBer, and this by major step forward. = Not minisclue nuance, but a major modification. .
Dual 8's is just too much midrange , dual 8's cone surface area is too great a voicing for mids.
I'm guessing the VX6 will show superior voicing vs the DLW4 and hoping the 6 cone surface area will not over load in certain midrange fq's.
If for whatever reason the DLVX6 shows a tad too much midrange, then we can always go back to the DLW4 and also try adding in the TB1878.
Which would result ina
W8 + W4 + W3 WBer System.
All this is in testing and need time (and cash) to complete this Mutil Speaker WBer System.
As far as I know, no one else has come up with such a scheme.
And so my speaker design will be the very 1st of its kind.
I know there are mutil point source designs, But not a specific Wide band designs featuring different size cones.
And also with midwoofer and tweeter assist.
I call this scheme
The Frankenstein.
March /april 2022 we will see if Franky will walk or not.
As of now, i can assure you this speaker is the best I've ever heard in my life.
And even at this stage of developement, I'll put i in a shootout with any xover.low sensitivity type speaker.
Within its parimeters/size.
Obviously Wilson's Monolithic monsters will have a far grand sound stage vs this much smaller speaker system.
Also I have plans to test out a higher tech tweeter next year. Vs my paper cone /double magnet tweeter thats taking care of the highs.
Runninga 8uf Mundorf as filter, Works perfect,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The future, He discusses the idea of *many tiny point source speakers*
I believe I have invented The Future Speaker for the 21st C audiophile
My design employs
either a dual WBer + assist speakers
Or a 3 way WBer with assist.
I need cash to obtain the DLVX6, so as to see ifa trio will work.
Dual 8's such as TB2145 + DLVX8 made the image too thick in midrange.
My current dual WBers employs the DavidLouis W4 and has made a significant developement in soundstage presentation.
My hunch is the VX6 will be even more high fidelity vs the Davidlouis W4....
Which will mean adding a W4 might not be necessary,
The final stage of this developement/experiement will be adding a Tang Band 1878 3 inch as a possible 3rd WBer.
At this point I can safely say a dual WBer is superior to a single WBer, and this by major step forward. = Not minisclue nuance, but a major modification. .
Dual 8's is just too much midrange , dual 8's cone surface area is too great a voicing for mids.
I'm guessing the VX6 will show superior voicing vs the DLW4 and hoping the 6 cone surface area will not over load in certain midrange fq's.
If for whatever reason the DLVX6 shows a tad too much midrange, then we can always go back to the DLW4 and also try adding in the TB1878.
Which would result ina
W8 + W4 + W3 WBer System.
All this is in testing and need time (and cash) to complete this Mutil Speaker WBer System.
As far as I know, no one else has come up with such a scheme.
And so my speaker design will be the very 1st of its kind.
I know there are mutil point source designs, But not a specific Wide band designs featuring different size cones.
And also with midwoofer and tweeter assist.
I call this scheme
The Frankenstein.
March /april 2022 we will see if Franky will walk or not.
As of now, i can assure you this speaker is the best I've ever heard in my life.
And even at this stage of developement, I'll put i in a shootout with any xover.low sensitivity type speaker.
Within its parimeters/size.
Obviously Wilson's Monolithic monsters will have a far grand sound stage vs this much smaller speaker system.
Also I have plans to test out a higher tech tweeter next year. Vs my paper cone /double magnet tweeter thats taking care of the highs.
Runninga 8uf Mundorf as filter, Works perfect,
Last edited:
you have to listen to the right one. They aren't all the same. Also you might have poor judgment. Some non audiophiles can sit in front of Yg acoustics and not hear anything nice.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There only exist a few true high fidelity WBers.
The est are either *mid-fi* or just plain trash.
Take the LII Fast 8 = pure trash.
There are quite a few trash WBers.
And yes fact is, most audiophiles ain't gota clue how to determine a speakers voicing, Not even a clue.
I'm wondering if they have listened to too much loud R&R have lost part of their hearing.
Ir have no training in what to listen for.
Perhaps both can be found as the causes and then there is nothing we can do about that.
So they stick to what they *know* is good sound, their commercial specials Its called consumerISM
They can figure outside *the box* pun intended.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There only exist a few true high fidelity WBers.
The est are either *mid-fi* or just plain trash.
Take the LII Fast 8 = pure trash.
There are quite a few trash WBers.
And yes fact is, most audiophiles ain't gota clue how to determine a speakers voicing, Not even a clue.
I'm wondering if they have listened to too much loud R&R have lost part of their hearing.
Ir have no training in what to listen for.
Perhaps both can be found as the causes and then there is nothing we can do about that.
So they stick to what they *know* is good sound, their commercial specials Its called consumerISM
They can figure outside *the box* pun intended.
With the mention of coaxial and MTM, I'm envisioning an expansion of the MTM thing - several (three, four, five or six, or howevermany will fit) midrange drivers on the baffle in a circle around the tweeter. Has this ever been done? The impedances and wiring are of course a little more complicated with so many midrange drivers, unless one uses an active crossover and a separate amplifier for each frequency band.
You can call it the Bradley configuration.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Tekton has some such gimmich with their multi tweeter setup,
I bet it sounds aweful in spite of the ciuntless **rave reviews* = snakeoil-ing, Speaker flavor of the year, Along with Zu's multi concentric, Yuckkyyy Both voted most popular = most pumped.
Mine system is taking your ideas of multi midrage, but instead employing multi
Wide Bands + multi assist speakers.
So far so good.
Sounds best I've ever heard in my life.
No coloration, no distortion,,none to speak of, thus non fatiguing system.
IOW its everything that Wilson, Vandersteen, Thiel, ZU, Dali, Sonus Faber could hope and wish FOR their speakers,,, but alas, fall short.
these superior characterists belong only to the high end WBers.
Big money throw at speakers never ever did equate to high fidelity sound stage
And so never will either.
This is just one of many myths involved with the religious audiophile fanatics.
You can call it the Bradley configuration.
~~~~~~~~~~~
Tekton has some such gimmich with their multi tweeter setup,
I bet it sounds aweful in spite of the ciuntless **rave reviews* = snakeoil-ing, Speaker flavor of the year, Along with Zu's multi concentric, Yuckkyyy Both voted most popular = most pumped.
Mine system is taking your ideas of multi midrage, but instead employing multi
Wide Bands + multi assist speakers.
So far so good.
Sounds best I've ever heard in my life.
No coloration, no distortion,,none to speak of, thus non fatiguing system.
IOW its everything that Wilson, Vandersteen, Thiel, ZU, Dali, Sonus Faber could hope and wish FOR their speakers,,, but alas, fall short.
these superior characterists belong only to the high end WBers.
Big money throw at speakers never ever did equate to high fidelity sound stage
And so never will either.
This is just one of many myths involved with the religious audiophile fanatics.
There is something unique about having a single driver producing all sounds which you dont hear with multi way. The step response is much sharper.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am aware this guy has been banned for whatever reason
But he speaks my language
After hooking a cheap Diatone 6 inch WBer on one cahnnel, and the Seas Thors with new highe nd Mundorf xovers on the other, it was a lightening bolt of realiaztion, that xover/low sens types have serious inherent non correctable glaring flaws.
I ripped out the brand new Millennium tweets lsited on Ebay at $300/free ship, took my 450 loss and never looked back at a xover type speaker as front and center speaker,.
For Assists iin a WBer system ?
Yes,
As Principle Tenors /Soprano ??absoluetly not!!!
A speaker system w/o a WBer sounds terrible, lousey full of coloration, stressed, resonances, IOW fatiguing.
Its there.
Most audiophiles either deny its there or just plain stubborn in dishonesty about the speakers flaws.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I am aware this guy has been banned for whatever reason
But he speaks my language
After hooking a cheap Diatone 6 inch WBer on one cahnnel, and the Seas Thors with new highe nd Mundorf xovers on the other, it was a lightening bolt of realiaztion, that xover/low sens types have serious inherent non correctable glaring flaws.
I ripped out the brand new Millennium tweets lsited on Ebay at $300/free ship, took my 450 loss and never looked back at a xover type speaker as front and center speaker,.
For Assists iin a WBer system ?
Yes,
As Principle Tenors /Soprano ??absoluetly not!!!
A speaker system w/o a WBer sounds terrible, lousey full of coloration, stressed, resonances, IOW fatiguing.
Its there.
Most audiophiles either deny its there or just plain stubborn in dishonesty about the speakers flaws.
than trust someone else's subjective opinion. I can't think of any reason to choose full range over multi-way speaker,
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
fact is, Multi/low sens/xover types are the main topic, with rarelya mention of WBers.
This multi's are PropagandaIZED to the max. Pumped, Snakeoil-ED all day, every day.
**can't think of any reason WBers shoudl be considered v over OUR Multi way low sens speakers**
I just gave **multi* reasons,, I can add another 4 or 5 if you want.
It baffles me why folks refsue to even consider the new high end WBers as a possible speaker for true high fidelity.
Just odd..Oh wait, this may be just another consumeristic/commercialistic wave overwhelming the individual's freedom to think for himself of other possibilities.
Better follow the crowd, its a safe bet.
The crowd always knows better.
Even Stereophile says xover/low sensitivity types are what you want, what you need.
Look not into WBers, as they are not what we recommend you purchase.
So everyone believes the hype. .
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
fact is, Multi/low sens/xover types are the main topic, with rarelya mention of WBers.
This multi's are PropagandaIZED to the max. Pumped, Snakeoil-ED all day, every day.
**can't think of any reason WBers shoudl be considered v over OUR Multi way low sens speakers**
I just gave **multi* reasons,, I can add another 4 or 5 if you want.
It baffles me why folks refsue to even consider the new high end WBers as a possible speaker for true high fidelity.
Just odd..Oh wait, this may be just another consumeristic/commercialistic wave overwhelming the individual's freedom to think for himself of other possibilities.
Better follow the crowd, its a safe bet.
The crowd always knows better.
Even Stereophile says xover/low sensitivity types are what you want, what you need.
Look not into WBers, as they are not what we recommend you purchase.
So everyone believes the hype. .
Those who enjoy fullrange drivers are certain that they hear something that the most expensive multi ways cant do despite the flaws associated with full range cones
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There exists a tiny niche of us faithful WBer fan-atics. I confess I am a pure WBer cultist. But not so pure asto reject the idea of keeping midwoofers around for padded bass. And adding in a higher sensitivity tweeter vs the avg tweeters below 90db sensitivity.
WBers allow for a seamless, coherent, well behaved upper bass/low midrange response.
Which equates into very low resonances within the upper bass/lower midband width, and thus no breakup through-out the super critical 500hz-2500hz band width.
Here in this range is where 70%++ of our music is voiced.
As someone mentioned, many recordings dont qualify as high fidelity,, So whats the point in seeking this elusive higher fidelity.
Many of my classical recordings do not respond to this need for ultra fidelity, not deserve the high end WBers neutral voicing.
But what i get is the richness of the WBers potential, the supreme neutrality, The larger voice coil vs a tweeters voice coil attempting to sing the 2khz -3khz range.
WBers show forth all its wonderous colors with no stress whatsoever in this middle midrange band width.
Whereas midwoofers struggle in low mids and tweeters are just lousey below 3khz.
Especially when trying to voice a full symphony orchestra.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
There exists a tiny niche of us faithful WBer fan-atics. I confess I am a pure WBer cultist. But not so pure asto reject the idea of keeping midwoofers around for padded bass. And adding in a higher sensitivity tweeter vs the avg tweeters below 90db sensitivity.
WBers allow for a seamless, coherent, well behaved upper bass/low midrange response.
Which equates into very low resonances within the upper bass/lower midband width, and thus no breakup through-out the super critical 500hz-2500hz band width.
Here in this range is where 70%++ of our music is voiced.
As someone mentioned, many recordings dont qualify as high fidelity,, So whats the point in seeking this elusive higher fidelity.
Many of my classical recordings do not respond to this need for ultra fidelity, not deserve the high end WBers neutral voicing.
But what i get is the richness of the WBers potential, the supreme neutrality, The larger voice coil vs a tweeters voice coil attempting to sing the 2khz -3khz range.
WBers show forth all its wonderous colors with no stress whatsoever in this middle midrange band width.
Whereas midwoofers struggle in low mids and tweeters are just lousey below 3khz.
Especially when trying to voice a full symphony orchestra.
recordings are not anyway
Agree even in jazz there are some great and not so great recordings
When I heard Diana Krall's cd via a single DLVX8 with Excel W18Eo001 + tweeter, I liked what I heard, but was not so impressed with Diana 's talents, sort of tweaked in the studio, When i added in the DLW4, like WOW, Now I GOT Diana's raw sensuous poetic gifts.
The over lap of 2 high end WBers made her vocals come to creative life.
Believe it or not.
i am telling you what I experienced. No snakeoil
But agree, some classical recordings will not sound perfect ona dual WBer system, but most certainly superior to any and every xover type design.
Agree even in jazz there are some great and not so great recordings
When I heard Diana Krall's cd via a single DLVX8 with Excel W18Eo001 + tweeter, I liked what I heard, but was not so impressed with Diana 's talents, sort of tweaked in the studio, When i added in the DLW4, like WOW, Now I GOT Diana's raw sensuous poetic gifts.
The over lap of 2 high end WBers made her vocals come to creative life.
Believe it or not.
i am telling you what I experienced. No snakeoil
But agree, some classical recordings will not sound perfect ona dual WBer system, but most certainly superior to any and every xover type design.
But multi way it is, with it's own plus and minuses.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When we finish the accounting, the multi/xover types will be found ~~Bankrupt.
vs the WBers as wealthy, healthy and vibrantly alive
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
When we finish the accounting, the multi/xover types will be found ~~Bankrupt.
vs the WBers as wealthy, healthy and vibrantly alive
so do you think we can achieve the benefits of a single driver speaker using multiway?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Multi way/low sensitivity/xover types will never come up to the near perfect vocing of the midrange band width in a higher end WBer.
Troels is struggling over there in Sweden trying to get the mids right, so he expects us to employ high end caps (=$$$$) to make the midrange magic happen.
Hey Troels keep at it, one day your designs might just beat a WBers midrange band width.
Hey Troels, how much did you say we need for all the xover components?
whaaa, how much???
Just a few of his caps in any of the xovers cost more than a pair of DLVX8's.
With cash left over for a nice steak dinner at Ruby Chris Steak house.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Multi way/low sensitivity/xover types will never come up to the near perfect vocing of the midrange band width in a higher end WBer.
Troels is struggling over there in Sweden trying to get the mids right, so he expects us to employ high end caps (=$$$$) to make the midrange magic happen.
Hey Troels keep at it, one day your designs might just beat a WBers midrange band width.
Hey Troels, how much did you say we need for all the xover components?
whaaa, how much???
Just a few of his caps in any of the xovers cost more than a pair of DLVX8's.
With cash left over for a nice steak dinner at Ruby Chris Steak house.
Wow. A lot of words for an 8 year old thread. I got lost/confused/bored somewhere into your 2nd of 12 posts ... Was there a question buried in there somewhere?
Hmmmm.... This seems very Strawman to me. Did anyone actually say that, or did you come to that conclusion yourself? That statement does not sound like anything I've actually heard someone say.
Tell that to someone who struggles with the peak at said frequency in a Fostex FE126/127, FF125wk. Doesn't bother some people, drives others crazy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2 WBers that I think I will not like are
Fostex and Mark Audio,
I prefer 2 other labs speakers.
No 2 WBers are equal/sound alike.
The Voxativ AC1A was a bomb.
The worst speaker ever heard.
They want gold for their better wood cone speaker, Sorry I don't pay big prices when i already have some of the best.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2 WBers that I think I will not like are
Fostex and Mark Audio,
I prefer 2 other labs speakers.
No 2 WBers are equal/sound alike.
The Voxativ AC1A was a bomb.
The worst speaker ever heard.
They want gold for their better wood cone speaker, Sorry I don't pay big prices when i already have some of the best.