While there is some "pinching" in that region, the resulting responses are still smooth no matter how you slice it. There is no "mushroom cloud" as you like to call it. The scale of the measurements sort of "nukes" your "mushroom cloud" assertion. And the end result of the entire system is a room response that is textbook flat.
There are audible differences in the way different transducers reproduce complex signals. RAALs don't sound like domes and it has nothing to do with polar response. Accutons don't sound like Dayton Reference drivers.
Driver choice is at least as important as the final polar response. In my experience, it is more important than polar response.
There are audible differences in the way different transducers reproduce complex signals. RAALs don't sound like domes and it has nothing to do with polar response. Accutons don't sound like Dayton Reference drivers.
Driver choice is at least as important as the final polar response. In my experience, it is more important than polar response.
I forgot to mention something about this. How low and therefore how big a waveguide would you contemplate using for that driver? There are a number of tweeters that could get to 500Hz in a 10" waveguide and handle more power and produce more SPL than the Aura. Trying to get much below 500Hz and the guide becomes huge.
I presume a lot of beliefs that audiophiles and DIYers hold true
should, for the sake of truth, be subjected to double blind testing,
which in reality for most of them would not be fun or even
doable, so we are left with speculation and sighted comparisons.
That is why the extra expensive parts will tend to be a "proof" of
their excellence. Anyhow, I'll stick with good value items.
Ah the blind grass test applies...
Seing the Vapor audio line, they prefer Raal as having just one beyma tpl150h speaker...and this amt is not cheaper than Raal Ribons.
Agree with Planet10 thé just final listening impression counts.
But the OP came quasi from scratch with the culture he knows with à sort of reverse engineering. We all have to beginn from somewhere....Hey. No bad things here....
Seing the Vapor audio line, they prefer Raal as having just one beyma tpl150h speaker...and this amt is not cheaper than Raal Ribons.
Agree with Planet10 thé just final listening impression counts.
But the OP came quasi from scratch with the culture he knows with à sort of reverse engineering. We all have to beginn from somewhere....Hey. No bad things here....
Pete,
I see Vapor Audio gives the choice of the flavor for the high end line between paper mids and ceramic mids according the taste of the buyer.
You seems to have already listened aerogel from Audax and their equivalent from PHL Audio.
About the détails a harder and stiff cone can give, how do you rate please the paper with aerogel for sound precision ? Between the raw paper of a wavecor and a ceramic of accuton ?
Thanks a lot.
regards
Eldam
The reason they use the TPL-150H in that 2-way design is so they can xo low enough before the 10" Acoustic Elegance starts beaming. It was in the 1000-1100Hz range, if I recall correctly. The Raals aren't capable of going that low. I wouldn't go that low with the TPL neither, but I guess it was the compromise that rendered best results given the constraints they were working with. Makes sense in my book.
Yes it's also my understanding !
But the 1600 hZ is the danger zone for the TPL (impedance peak ! distorsions !), Even if a new sealed enclosure at its back helps, my understanding is you can not play it at a too big spl !
That's also why you want to avoid the < 2k HZ aera for XO with it and it makes sense for me !
Do you want always use 10" ? I really think the 6.5" PHL 1040 could be a good one (looking at its datasheet) if you XO it above 500 hZ. maybe two to match the transcient of the TPL ? and good for your SET amp !
To be followed, I'm a little lost in the readings of bass and mid-bass confs 🙁 ! Trade offs and foot print are not easy !
- band pass for the subwoofer ?
- sealed sloted load (PPSL) or open à la Papa (Nelson Pass)
Mid bass ? : 12", but as you saw yourself : the lowest the Qts, the higher the XO in the voice zone (300/400 hz)... pfffff😡 ! Maybe a Linkwitz transform...
As said by a member : the danger is the need to match the speed of the AMT for a coherent sounding !
What about the max spl of non efficienty driver à la Accuton or wavecor ? 105 dB with long cone exursion ?! Bad if you want like me the highest spl peaks some reccordings have ?? (I want to match > 115 Db WITHOUT driver distors... not a question for me about SET but just to allow the highest dynamic possible (headroom) !
Let us know your progressions with your project 🙂
regards
But the 1600 hZ is the danger zone for the TPL (impedance peak ! distorsions !), Even if a new sealed enclosure at its back helps, my understanding is you can not play it at a too big spl !
That's also why you want to avoid the < 2k HZ aera for XO with it and it makes sense for me !
Do you want always use 10" ? I really think the 6.5" PHL 1040 could be a good one (looking at its datasheet) if you XO it above 500 hZ. maybe two to match the transcient of the TPL ? and good for your SET amp !
To be followed, I'm a little lost in the readings of bass and mid-bass confs 🙁 ! Trade offs and foot print are not easy !
- band pass for the subwoofer ?
- sealed sloted load (PPSL) or open à la Papa (Nelson Pass)
Mid bass ? : 12", but as you saw yourself : the lowest the Qts, the higher the XO in the voice zone (300/400 hz)... pfffff😡 ! Maybe a Linkwitz transform...
As said by a member : the danger is the need to match the speed of the AMT for a coherent sounding !
What about the max spl of non efficienty driver à la Accuton or wavecor ? 105 dB with long cone exursion ?! Bad if you want like me the highest spl peaks some reccordings have ?? (I want to match > 115 Db WITHOUT driver distors... not a question for me about SET but just to allow the highest dynamic possible (headroom) !
Let us know your progressions with your project 🙂
regards
Last edited:
A 10" midrange is not in my plans. Directivity would be way off vs the 80 degrees the TPL-150H will be at at the xo point.
From a directivity standpoint, a 6 or 6.5" looks best and could xo in the 2.2-2.5kHz region. Then people talk about the sense of impact a larger midrange provides, and makes me wonder. PHL certainly looks interesting, but they don't present their curves...Dieter Achenbach in Germany is quite knowledgeable about PHL, and actually sells an MTM based on 8" PHL midranges and TPL, and also a 6.5" PHL version. He recommended me to go TM with an 8" PHL...more to consider. Directivity wouldn't match as nicely as a 6.5".
Unfortunately PHL is tough to source here, plus they don't publish curves, so makes me hesitate. If you happen to get them, please post here the curves you get.
On the other hand the B&W FST midranges (that I happen to have in my B&W) look very, very good. Maybe except for sensitivity if I wanted to go SET. So I might give it a try with those. And maybe try MTM with them.
I guess it also depends what your starting point is. In my case I already had a couple of Rythmik subs in very heavy DIY sealed enclosures. I decided to go 4-way active, and to use Acourate software to do digital xo, driver linearization, time alignment, and room correction.
So in my case the subwoofers were a given. I need midbass, and decided to go sealed as every other configuration seems to trade off something in an effort to gain low end extension - something I don't need.
Within midbass, I studied about 30 drivers from 8" to a couple 15". Narrowed down to 10" and 12", and eventually realized a pair of Beyma 10G40 provided the flexibility to better mitigate baffle step and also provided the highest Vd at 80Hz, while staying under 25% of Xmax, and having very low Le (and Mms/Bl, which I found correlates with Le). Although my plan is to start xo at 350/400Hz, these drivers can easily play higher and do so well. 12P80Fe and Nd were also in the short list, but the 10G40 look better for my design. If interested, search for my threads here. I received very good help.
I'm getting ready to buy the 10G40 and start experimenting with different enclosures, sizes, shapes. Pentagonal footprint? Size such that Qtc is 0.707or go much larger and get to Qtc in the region of 0.4? Tapered internal shape, a-la transmission line? Should be fun!!
Wheeew...I didn't mean to post this long! I hope it helps.
We haven't auditioned Audax or PHL . . . yet. Our lineup is pretty much complete, but we continue to develop custom systems.
As to why we went with the Wavecor for the mids along with the Accuton, it's all customer driven. Certain people love Accuton, some don't. Accuton is tough to work with but yields phenomenal results when tamed. Our latest system features a custom 8" Accuton mid and the brand new 2" sapphire dome. Both drivers exhibit significant cone resonance due mainly to the very stiff membranes that make up the diaphragms. But once we took care of those regions, the result is incredibly smooth and detailed. We never heard from anyone about any kind of Accuton "edge" to the sound. A few were even vocal about their aversion to Accuton drivers before they sat down.
To sum up why we chose the drivers we did to make up our line is based primarily on performance. I know Ryan has auditioned more top tier drivers than anyone else I know before making the choice of Audio Technology for our woofers. Accutons showed up to please customer requests, but we don't use just any Accuton drivers. Both the C173 and the C158 are the result of Accuton's latest motor research. They are amplifier-like in their linearity and stay very well composed during complex music. They make phenomenal midrange drivers. But they just don't do the bass and midbass like the Audiotech drivers.
The Wavecor drivers are a notch down from both the AT and Accuton, but not by much. I'd put them close to the same level of refinement in their delivery as the Scan Revelator line. The WF152 fiberglass/paper is a beast of a midwoofer. It's bass performance is surprising, staying below 1% distortion to 70Hz and 90dB output. Its midrange distortion is excellent at less than .1% 3rd harmonic at 90dB and about .3% total, mostly 2nd harmonic, all the way past 3KHz. And most of all, it does an admirable job at staying composed during complex passages. And it's flexible enough to allow 2nd order crossovers with the tweeter. It's definitely a little gem.
Our use of TPL150H is as a tweeter in a 93dB/W system. Based on our measurements, the TPL has no problems with distortion/distress at 1KHz. We don't recommend driving the system with more than a 500W amplifier which would limit the power to the tweeter under program material to no more than about 20W RMS. Posted manufacturer data doesn't show issues at 1KHz either. And there is no "impedance peak" to speak of with the TPL. Its resistance varies no more than .2 Ohm, peaking at 5 Ohm at around 1400Hz and falling back to 4.8 Ohm over most of the band. It's a really nice tweeter . . .
As to why we went with the Wavecor for the mids along with the Accuton, it's all customer driven. Certain people love Accuton, some don't. Accuton is tough to work with but yields phenomenal results when tamed. Our latest system features a custom 8" Accuton mid and the brand new 2" sapphire dome. Both drivers exhibit significant cone resonance due mainly to the very stiff membranes that make up the diaphragms. But once we took care of those regions, the result is incredibly smooth and detailed. We never heard from anyone about any kind of Accuton "edge" to the sound. A few were even vocal about their aversion to Accuton drivers before they sat down.
To sum up why we chose the drivers we did to make up our line is based primarily on performance. I know Ryan has auditioned more top tier drivers than anyone else I know before making the choice of Audio Technology for our woofers. Accutons showed up to please customer requests, but we don't use just any Accuton drivers. Both the C173 and the C158 are the result of Accuton's latest motor research. They are amplifier-like in their linearity and stay very well composed during complex music. They make phenomenal midrange drivers. But they just don't do the bass and midbass like the Audiotech drivers.
The Wavecor drivers are a notch down from both the AT and Accuton, but not by much. I'd put them close to the same level of refinement in their delivery as the Scan Revelator line. The WF152 fiberglass/paper is a beast of a midwoofer. It's bass performance is surprising, staying below 1% distortion to 70Hz and 90dB output. Its midrange distortion is excellent at less than .1% 3rd harmonic at 90dB and about .3% total, mostly 2nd harmonic, all the way past 3KHz. And most of all, it does an admirable job at staying composed during complex passages. And it's flexible enough to allow 2nd order crossovers with the tweeter. It's definitely a little gem.
Our use of TPL150H is as a tweeter in a 93dB/W system. Based on our measurements, the TPL has no problems with distortion/distress at 1KHz. We don't recommend driving the system with more than a 500W amplifier which would limit the power to the tweeter under program material to no more than about 20W RMS. Posted manufacturer data doesn't show issues at 1KHz either. And there is no "impedance peak" to speak of with the TPL. Its resistance varies no more than .2 Ohm, peaking at 5 Ohm at around 1400Hz and falling back to 4.8 Ohm over most of the band. It's a really nice tweeter . . .
Last edited:
You seem to have compensated a low directivity index by 2dB on axis. At a crossover this may mean something entirely different to a general response dip. Also the presence of vertical lobing would be serving to improve the numbers by increasing the DI.
At this stage of the game it could come down to a range of things. Often two wrongs will make half of a right.
Maybe, baffling/correct use is important, particularly ellipsoidals are rarely done well. For raw performance I'd consider 1wl across plus a substantial termination. Smaller can (is usually) done with some effort.
Some of the on-axis dip in the range of interest is due to diffraction effects.
While we weren't trying to fulfill a specific polar response/room response, we knew what sounded good/right. The MTM we built before we built the Nimbus told us all we needed to know . . . the MTM deserved a bass bin. Everything else we hoped for in the sound was in there. It sounded great even in a typical room. So adding a 15" woofer would make it that much better, right? 😉
If you can get the polars you're after with the drivers you want, that's as good as it gets. But if you want a certain look to the sculpture you are creating for someone, you might just have to sacrifice a little something to pull it off. Doesn't mean it will result in sonic dissonance. And sometimes, it will just work out.
While we weren't trying to fulfill a specific polar response/room response, we knew what sounded good/right. The MTM we built before we built the Nimbus told us all we needed to know . . . the MTM deserved a bass bin. Everything else we hoped for in the sound was in there. It sounded great even in a typical room. So adding a 15" woofer would make it that much better, right? 😉
If you can get the polars you're after with the drivers you want, that's as good as it gets. But if you want a certain look to the sculpture you are creating for someone, you might just have to sacrifice a little something to pull it off. Doesn't mean it will result in sonic dissonance. And sometimes, it will just work out.
Thnaks guys for the inputs,
@ Lewinski01,
Don't know if that helps about PHL, but here you have the measurement of the 6.5" 1040 in a sealed enclosure http://www.hiendfi.net/hfdownload/Misljenja/Usher-Audio/9950-20%20Test%20Review.pdf (typo fault in this document, it's in fact a 1040 ! flat curve 1000 to 2000 at 100 dB ! A pretty match for the TPLH...
from : http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/280481-phl-1120-fill-driver-1k-hz-2k-hz.html#post4468930
Don't know where you live but there is here in France several shops which shipp !
With 2x 6.5 you should have the "impact" of the wider standalone 8", no ? the PHL 1040 is frontcoated aerogel (sound should blend to a planar tweeter as it's clear) and have 7g weight, had two in mtm and you have a greater transcient (as you don't need more efficienty !) ; price is nearly twice cheaper (100 euros) than the more expensive 8" the german fellow talks about! Btw it could be nice to know what 6.5" he chossed from PHL Audio !
@ Lewinski01,
Don't know if that helps about PHL, but here you have the measurement of the 6.5" 1040 in a sealed enclosure http://www.hiendfi.net/hfdownload/Misljenja/Usher-Audio/9950-20%20Test%20Review.pdf (typo fault in this document, it's in fact a 1040 ! flat curve 1000 to 2000 at 100 dB ! A pretty match for the TPLH...
from : http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/280481-phl-1120-fill-driver-1k-hz-2k-hz.html#post4468930
Don't know where you live but there is here in France several shops which shipp !
With 2x 6.5 you should have the "impact" of the wider standalone 8", no ? the PHL 1040 is frontcoated aerogel (sound should blend to a planar tweeter as it's clear) and have 7g weight, had two in mtm and you have a greater transcient (as you don't need more efficienty !) ; price is nearly twice cheaper (100 euros) than the more expensive 8" the german fellow talks about! Btw it could be nice to know what 6.5" he chossed from PHL Audio !
Last edited:
Thanks for the link to the hiendfi.net article, which I had not seen before. Difficult to place too much credit on a reporter that makes typos on both drivers being analyzed, though. Anyway, the 1120 looks good. I wouldn't say fantastic, though. See the impedance wiggles. The scale of the impedance curve is such that it makes hard to appreciate the magnitude of the wiggles, but they are frequent. Impedance raises also rather steeply with frequency. Of course what matters is how it sounds, which he didn't tell.
The performance seems similar to the 8" PHL Zaph measured, and he also displayed wiggles in the impedance curve. He did comment on the high performance of that unit.
The way I look at the graph, though, is sensitivity is 96dB at 500-600Hz and that will be the bottleneck for me. It's actually the same minimum sensitivity the FST driver displays, although it does so at 600-700Hz. The FST has way smoother impedance curve, though, and almost flat across the usable range. PHL is cheaper than B&W, but tougher to source for me.
If I were in your shoes I'd try to speak with PHL and find where to get more info. In my case, I find it hard to embark on sourcing drivers from France to Argentina in a leap of faith they should be good. Too bad they don't publish curves and other data.
Eldam,
I went back to my e-mail exchange with Dieter Achenbach: "A dedicated midrange like the PHL 2520 (see attached data sheet) has winding height of 12mm with a 8mm thick pole plate. The resulting 2mm linear Xmax is definitely enough for running it above 350Hz. This gives a higher sensitivity, better drive ratio and better control. I know the 2520/2530 as a driver with a powerful and clear sound.
From my point of view a 8” dedicated midrange is the best solution for the TPL150H. One 6,5” is odd-looking, with two in a MTM configuration the space between them is too big."
I had forgotten his comment about spacing being too big for an MTM. And this is coming from someone who designed/sells an MTM with those drivers! Upon revisiting his website I saw his SON-XL speaker is MTM with TPL-H plus PHL 3020, while the SON-B mkII is MTM with TPL-H plus PHL 2460. Keep in mind he has done a few measurements of PHL drivers and he has all PHL available for his designs, yet he chose these and suggested a single 2520 for my application.
Here is a German forum discussing a similar design: groß, laut und hoffentlich gut: 3-Wege-aktiv - Ich bau das!, Lautsprecher - HIFI-FORUM
I went back to my e-mail exchange with Dieter Achenbach: "A dedicated midrange like the PHL 2520 (see attached data sheet) has winding height of 12mm with a 8mm thick pole plate. The resulting 2mm linear Xmax is definitely enough for running it above 350Hz. This gives a higher sensitivity, better drive ratio and better control. I know the 2520/2530 as a driver with a powerful and clear sound.
From my point of view a 8” dedicated midrange is the best solution for the TPL150H. One 6,5” is odd-looking, with two in a MTM configuration the space between them is too big."
I had forgotten his comment about spacing being too big for an MTM. And this is coming from someone who designed/sells an MTM with those drivers! Upon revisiting his website I saw his SON-XL speaker is MTM with TPL-H plus PHL 3020, while the SON-B mkII is MTM with TPL-H plus PHL 2460. Keep in mind he has done a few measurements of PHL drivers and he has all PHL available for his designs, yet he chose these and suggested a single 2520 for my application.
Here is a German forum discussing a similar design: groß, laut und hoffentlich gut: 3-Wege-aktiv - Ich bau das!, Lautsprecher - HIFI-FORUM
My bad, It is not a typo fault : I diged and they are out off shelves products now but have better equivalent : For the 1120, the actual is 1050 (double coated with resine and damping rear chamber). The 1040 is just front coated but have also just a 7g Mms cone !)
As for the writer 🙂 I wouldn't say Van Dickason is a reporter, ahahaha! And you know, maybe typo are made after by the rewriter or during the review paper/internet fabrication !
Notice the step you saw are the bafle step. the sealed enclosure Dickason had for the test still applies as the load is the same for the old and new datasheet : 3 liters !
If you Google with the name of those drivers you can find even more independant measurements : all goods !
I hesitate myself with a planar for mids : B&G 8 Neo Pdr which is still sourcable here in Europe (though I have doubt because some rumors about consistency and copy from China, or refurbished after quality tests !). I also read here a member in 2007 who said his Neo3 PDR tweeter had not the same good measurement than Zaph (John Krukt) tested !
But here I trust also the good work of Juhazi member with these drivers !
As well, I was interrested about your input about sense of impact and the need of a wider surface in the highs mids (800 to 2000 hZ). Someone told me I'm maybe a little too much about my needs of dynamic headroom (>115 dB, which PHL Audio drivers permitt) because as I have not SET , I just don't need so much efficient drivers !!!!!
Explanation is the dynamics peaks needs surely good electrical damping but the peaks in dynamic are most of the time + 3db above the average listening level !
I'm surprised about that knowing the numbers behing a classic or jazz event, but discs with all the artifacts reccordings should be like that : + 3 dB, not so much !
Btw if someone has an inmput about that, he is welcome...
Input of >Pete Schumacher about the possible Under 1600 hZ utilisation despite all the reviews readed in Klang... (german review), elswhere and members reviews worths a thought ! Maybe it's ok if we don't listen the TPL150H at pro level (while it's a product for monitoring and not live event !).
The PHLs are very clear and detailed but certainly less than a Neo 8 Pdr... so I assume the PHL will have the impact, punch behavior while the B&G Neo 8 PDR should have a better clearness, detailed sound ! Hummmm ! I don't know.
ALso a 70-10 from Rall with amorphous traffo is 400 euro... and can run with a Neo 8 Pdr (or a Neo 8 non-PDR: more efficienty (94 dB) but less good horizontal pattern than the PDR). If cones, one need a 5.5" or 4" to cross this little Raal or use the 150D !
regards
As for the writer 🙂 I wouldn't say Van Dickason is a reporter, ahahaha! And you know, maybe typo are made after by the rewriter or during the review paper/internet fabrication !
Notice the step you saw are the bafle step. the sealed enclosure Dickason had for the test still applies as the load is the same for the old and new datasheet : 3 liters !
If you Google with the name of those drivers you can find even more independant measurements : all goods !
I hesitate myself with a planar for mids : B&G 8 Neo Pdr which is still sourcable here in Europe (though I have doubt because some rumors about consistency and copy from China, or refurbished after quality tests !). I also read here a member in 2007 who said his Neo3 PDR tweeter had not the same good measurement than Zaph (John Krukt) tested !
But here I trust also the good work of Juhazi member with these drivers !
As well, I was interrested about your input about sense of impact and the need of a wider surface in the highs mids (800 to 2000 hZ). Someone told me I'm maybe a little too much about my needs of dynamic headroom (>115 dB, which PHL Audio drivers permitt) because as I have not SET , I just don't need so much efficient drivers !!!!!
Explanation is the dynamics peaks needs surely good electrical damping but the peaks in dynamic are most of the time + 3db above the average listening level !
I'm surprised about that knowing the numbers behing a classic or jazz event, but discs with all the artifacts reccordings should be like that : + 3 dB, not so much !
Btw if someone has an inmput about that, he is welcome...
Input of >Pete Schumacher about the possible Under 1600 hZ utilisation despite all the reviews readed in Klang... (german review), elswhere and members reviews worths a thought ! Maybe it's ok if we don't listen the TPL150H at pro level (while it's a product for monitoring and not live event !).
The PHLs are very clear and detailed but certainly less than a Neo 8 Pdr... so I assume the PHL will have the impact, punch behavior while the B&G Neo 8 PDR should have a better clearness, detailed sound ! Hummmm ! I don't know.
ALso a 70-10 from Rall with amorphous traffo is 400 euro... and can run with a Neo 8 Pdr (or a Neo 8 non-PDR: more efficienty (94 dB) but less good horizontal pattern than the PDR). If cones, one need a 5.5" or 4" to cross this little Raal or use the 150D !
regards
If you are from Argentina (nice country !) you would consider PRV Audio 5" Neodynium serie that xrq member measured in the full range section : very good driver, easy to cross (versatil) and from Brazil. (and maybe little enough for MTM with a good 2 k to 3 k XO ! : less odd looking & better center to center with the the TPLH ?)
Philippe Lessage (PHL creator, ancient from Audax) is known to not wanting to talk about that ! His targett is clearly high quality Professional speakers and studio monitor ! Not DIY markett ! I even don't know if he is still at PHL audio : he was the Creator but saw they changed of CEO this Summer. Notice if he is the owner, he can stay the owner behind ! I just don't know... PHL site has problems : it was down few days ago, now works but the datasheets are still unloadable (error ! not a good sign ! Hope they are not on the way of Audax ! Who knows )
Philippe Lessage (PHL creator, ancient from Audax) is known to not wanting to talk about that ! His targett is clearly high quality Professional speakers and studio monitor ! Not DIY markett ! I even don't know if he is still at PHL audio : he was the Creator but saw they changed of CEO this Summer. Notice if he is the owner, he can stay the owner behind ! I just don't know... PHL site has problems : it was down few days ago, now works but the datasheets are still unloadable (error ! not a good sign ! Hope they are not on the way of Audax ! Who knows )
Last edited:
Nice post about tplh150 distorsion levels : http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/mult...off-subjective-comparison-24.html#post4473544
about understanding around 1500 hZ behavior in relation to the output spl level !
about understanding around 1500 hZ behavior in relation to the output spl level !
Agree to disagree. That is objectively poor performance, in my view. I read and understood the scale before making my comments. Regardless, I appreciate you putting actual data out there to discuss.
Let's just say I wouldn't agree to a blind test between those speakers and a cheap, cheap-looking, but basically well-designed speaker like the Infinity Primus tower...
Nice saleshackery! I'm impressed. You probably got a lot of people with that line.
Of course, the more sophisticated reader will quickly note your scope shift from "first arrival" earlier to "room response" here. Never mind that if the polars suck, as they do here, then the midrange "room response" depends greatly on the room dimensions and damping. So you can't speak to "room response" in anything except for the specific room in which you measured them.
When listened to raw, I agree. When implemented to in a competently designed system, that should not be the case. But people can hear all kinds of things with their eyes, of course. Especially when nudged by a good sales-hack.
Well, I suppose we've established the performance ceiling of Vapor Audio here, as that mindset is inherently limiting compared to a more thoughtful approach.
Putting mere parts ahead of the performance is perhaps good for sales, but it's stupid if you care about music.
Last edited:
Directivity or not, the speakers I've built with RAAL transducers, have a different sound to the HF than their dome counterparts. To make a true scientific comparison and manipulate a dome to have the same directivity for a blind comparison, would be difficult to say the least.
What nonsense Face. They must sound the same. Pallas says so.
Notice that he makes these revelations without ever once hearing the product he's so sure sounds terrible.
His snide condescension is extremely off-putting. What a snob.
We have a speaker in our line up that follows all the rules with a nearly perfect polar response (Aurora) featuring excellent drivers. Performance ceiling? I don't think Pallas knows anything about performance if it's not part of a polar pattern.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.