, it's a tough job, but someone has to do it.Dr. G, is there any chance you can, or would, loan a pair of your speakers to fellow objectivist, Peter Aczel, aka The Audio Critic? (assuming he would want to review them) http://theaudiocritic.com/plog/
I am offereing a "touring" set of speakers if that suites the bill. I am not in a position to loan out a set except under the terms of this touring set however. I get too many requests for loaners for reviews.
I would say that beyond a doubt the thing for a seriuos reviewer to do is to come here and experince the full gamut of my designs, not just a single pair of Nathans. Everyone who comes here is impressed and I think that the experince has to done in person.
I would say that beyond a doubt the thing for a seriuos reviewer to do is to come here and experince the full gamut of my designs, not just a single pair of Nathans. Everyone who comes here is impressed and I think that the experince has to done in person.
gedlee said:
Peripheral, admittedly, but of potential interest and import in understanding the performance characteristics of axisymmetric waveguides which Markus is reporting here, i.e., on topic.
The point is that my interest IS genuine; I'm not here to take pot shots at your designs; I'm merely holding your feet to the fire with respect to substantiating claims you have made here with respect to their superiority. Again, this is a public forum, and when you make a conscious election to withhold the requisite data, it's not inappropriate to call you on it.
There's a limit to the utility of an iconoclastic posture practiced for its own sake. I can easily link the forum to vertical polars published by other manufacturers, some better and some worse than Markus's findings, despite your suggestion that none but you provide them (which you don't.) Your challenge to "Show me a loudspeaker with better polars" (@ #106) rings somewhat hollow in the context of your refusal to post the actual design performance data here.... 😴
Well you have your point of view and I have mine. I don't put a lot of weight in vertical polars and I never have. You and others are the ones who seem to see this as important not me.
And I would still like to see posted HORIZONTAL polars competitive with mine.
And you mistated earlier when you said
"obviating the necessity of employing a contrived horizontal off-axis listening alignment"
The opposite is actually the truth. The desire to toe-in the speakers came first which allows me to basically ignore the axial hole as of little concern. Even if it weren't there I STILL WOULD NOT recomend listening to the speakers on axis. Toeing them in is the right thing to do period and this requires a well controlled HORIZONTAL polar pattern.
If you do read my work you are consistantly mischaracterizing it - the fundamental reason why I don't cooperate with your demands.
And I would still like to see posted HORIZONTAL polars competitive with mine.
And you mistated earlier when you said
"obviating the necessity of employing a contrived horizontal off-axis listening alignment"
The opposite is actually the truth. The desire to toe-in the speakers came first which allows me to basically ignore the axial hole as of little concern. Even if it weren't there I STILL WOULD NOT recomend listening to the speakers on axis. Toeing them in is the right thing to do period and this requires a well controlled HORIZONTAL polar pattern.
If you do read my work you are consistantly mischaracterizing it - the fundamental reason why I don't cooperate with your demands.
gedlee said:
HUH? You measured them yourself, and posted them on your website (below).
And here's some JBL PA gear, even, that might be considered "competitive:"
http://www.jblpro.com/ae/pdf/spec_shts/AM6212_00.pdf
[The verticals are certainly no worse.... 😉 ]
gedlee said:
I don't know about "first," but it certainly came earlier, by others, by some 20 years:
http://audioheritage.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=7852
Attachments
Is this a 300 bucks Econowave vs. 600 bucks Nathan discussion?
IMO the Nathan pattern looks better because it fits the woofer at any angle.
IMO the Nathan pattern looks better because it fits the woofer at any angle.
ZilchLab said:
Misquoting me again to fan the flames? I said that the desire to toe-in the speakers came first NOT that I was the first to do this!!
gedlee said:
ZilchLab said:
ZilchLab, your posts seem to me to have an argumentative tone. Dr. Geddes asserts that you mischaracterize his work. In answer, you immediately mischaracterize his words. He did not say that he was the first to toe in speakers. He said that the desire to tow in speakers came before other considerations. Are you trying to prove his point?
Sheldon
Sheldon said:
Nope, just trying to elicit that very clarification. I was hoping for more, actually. Dr. Geddes's research indicates that the listening is improved by having the earliest reflection come from the opposite sidewall, which the extreme toe-in he advocates accomplishes.
Not to worry; Earl's a big boy, and is hardly insulted by this little exchange.
May we see the Nathan 10 verticals now, please...? 😉
ZilchLab said:
So in essence you are playing games. Again, substantiating Dr. Geddes objections. Yes, he is a big boy. Be one too. It will make a more pleasant environment for those of us who listen in.
Sheldon
ZilchLab said:
So what? JBL can take the financial risk to produce an injection moulded waveguide, Earl can't and has to do it by hand. Furthermore he can charge whatever he wants. The customer decides if it's worth the price.
I'm interested in facts and not personal antipathy. So to me the Summa looks smoother overall. But I don't want to be the judge...
Best, Markus
P.S. Even JBL sells horns for more than 200 bucks. So are they bad compared to the $9.90 horn? Don't tell me that's not the point you wanted to make because that is exactly the point you made.
getting power and signal to the subs
How are people dealing with the issue of getting power and signal to the subs? Iv'e been looking at the increasing amount of cheap 2.4GHz AV Sender/Receiver devices coming on the market.
Do these detract anything from the signal? Would it be possible to just plug one transmitter onto the back of the sub out on the preamp and then have 3 receivers one for each sub (with plate amps)? Would this be better then splitting the signal, having to boost it for 3 connections etc.. And of course not having to run wires everywhere.
col.
P.S. hey Earle you splurged $200 on a pioneer receiver! My 41hz amp9 only cost me $60 😀
How are people dealing with the issue of getting power and signal to the subs? Iv'e been looking at the increasing amount of cheap 2.4GHz AV Sender/Receiver devices coming on the market.
Do these detract anything from the signal? Would it be possible to just plug one transmitter onto the back of the sub out on the preamp and then have 3 receivers one for each sub (with plate amps)? Would this be better then splitting the signal, having to boost it for 3 connections etc.. And of course not having to run wires everywhere.
col.
P.S. hey Earle you splurged $200 on a pioneer receiver! My 41hz amp9 only cost me $60 😀
markus76 said:
WHO, then? Not ME, surely.... 😀
markus76 said:
No, that was NOT the point. I didn't mention the cost, rather merely clarified your characterization of the differential. You asked, I answered.
Remember Earl's purpose here: he tosses out these rhetorical challenges as an aggressive marketing ploy. Whether what I submit in response is "competitive" or not is for you and other readers to decide, but let's not pretend, as Earl would like us to, that nothing even comes close in this respect. Yes, JBL's $200 horns and waveguides are likely better than their cheapos Earl measured for us, and their $600 ones, even better still.
I don't know whether you would have measured the Nathan 10 verticals had I not suggested you do so, but it's clear that, knowing what he does, whatever that is, Earl would not appear likely to have recommended doing it. Whether your results are significant or not is indeterminate; they are what they are, and it is for each of us, ultimately, to decide what matters to us specifically and individually.
Certainly, in the interest of promoting his product, and in the context of how he recommends using it, the verticals may be but of minimal significance, but we might also easily find multiple citations wherein Earl asserts that both horizontal and vertical response are equally important.
It has taken this forum a very long time to figure out what Earl's design principles and products are about; it is indeed an intellectual challenge. There's still more to go, obviously, even once they are in hand....
Markus, can you make a 20-20k RTA 1/6 measurement at listening position with infinite time averaging, all boxes on, playing L+R Pink? Would be nice to have a visual clue of what finally happens in your room after you will be content with your bass, treatments, listening position etc. So when you post your overall subjective review we can understand more. Thank you in advance.
Hello Marcus
Thank You for reposting your curves for the first 40 degrees. I hope you enjoy them. You did a bang up job putting them together. I hope they sound as good as they look.
Can we get this back on track and start a new thread titled
"What I think is wrong with the Nathan's??"
Leave this to proper set-up??
Rob🙂
Thank You for reposting your curves for the first 40 degrees. I hope you enjoy them. You did a bang up job putting them together. I hope they sound as good as they look.
Can we get this back on track and start a new thread titled
"What I think is wrong with the Nathan's??"
Leave this to proper set-up??
Rob🙂
Zilch, did you watch too much X Files that make you think that some kind of conspiracy is going on? Earl is the only vendor I know that is discussing his design principles in public at all. You can read about it on his website, publications and numerous threads here.
What I don't get: There are so many ill defined concepts out there and the tradeoffs in speaker building you and Earl agree on are very similar. So what's the point in having a narrow-minded discussion about ... about what? About him not delivering what you want him to? I did post verticals - take them for real. Earl will correct it if it's of any interest. I didn't read your comments about the data - why not?
What I don't get: There are so many ill defined concepts out there and the tradeoffs in speaker building you and Earl agree on are very similar. So what's the point in having a narrow-minded discussion about ... about what? About him not delivering what you want him to? I did post verticals - take them for real. Earl will correct it if it's of any interest. I didn't read your comments about the data - why not?
- Status
- Not open for further replies.