If one is right, must the other be wrong?

[jdm56]

Not sure if this is the best place to post this, but I had to put it somewhere. This is one of those things that makes me go "hm"... Maybe it does you too. Or I could just be really odd.

Doesn't it strike you as strange that precisely opposite design goals can be invoked in an attempt to supposedly achieve the same thing? I'm talking about loudspeakers here, in case you were wondering. Specifically, radiation patterns. And the achievement being sought is sound quality, or perhaps accuracy, which is not necessarily the same thing. One company says controlled or relatively narrow dispersion is the right, true and shining path to audio Nirvana. Another equally well-respected company says broad dispersion is needed for open, natural sound. And then, if that wasn't bad enough, there's other companies proclaiming bipolar, dipoplar, omnipolar and all sorts of hyphenated variations. Quite confusing stuff, but also quite fascinating, at least for an audio-dork.

My question, if I have one, is this. Is there truly a "right" way to project recorded sound into a room, or is it all just a matter of opinion. Is it dependent upon the type of music, the playback room acoustics, or the listening habits of the end user, that ultimately determines the subjective quality? I think most of us have heard totally different types of loudspeaker systems, from the highly directional to the omni-directional, and they almost all can sound good at least some of the time. But is one right and the other wrong? It seems to depend on which sound "philosophy" you've bought in to.

I think it's hard to argue against the logic that minimizing room sound allows the recorded sound to be clearer. But that doesn't mean it will subjectively sound better to any given person. I know I have been struck by a sense of "aliveness" or "air" when switching from a controlled dipsersion design to a broad dispersion design. And conversely, I've been impressed with the clarity when going the other direction. That seems to get back to personal preference, because live music quality too, is judged on clarity AND the pleasant addition of the right amount of room sound, or reverb. Notice, no one listens to music in an anechoic chamber!

I think this is one of the reasons many hard-core audiophiles tend to speaker swap so often. One design is appreciated for what it does well, but then you realize after awhile, the things it doesn't do so well that another design does...and the wheel goes round and round. It's kinda like women. It's sometimes hard to be content with vanilla when there is also, chocolate and strawberry!

Have I answered my own question?[8-|]

[Groomlakearea51]

Yes...

[TNRabbit]

So what you're saying is we have to get a pair of EACH represented design to get "complete" sound/accuracy? [:|][]

[Edgy]

I think the goal of reproducing the sound of a live performance is futile. Sure, there are lots of reflections that affect the sound, when you are there, but the recording you are listening to is colored by so many things - the type and placement of microphones, the way the recording is mixed, etc. Plus, the attempt to mimic the reflected sounds, well, we all know where this leads, and I've heard about 901 reasons why this sounds terrible.

Myself, I mostly listen to studio albums. And I think these are best reproduced by basic two channel systems. I found this board because I recently purchased a pair of really nice Heresy I's, and I love the sound. But I still do most of my listening on a system I have at my computer desk. The speakers are homemade single driver TQWPs (look it up if you are curious) and I really enjoy these. They are connected to a nice old NAD receiver, and sound very nice on a wide range of music. Single driver speakers don't go real low, or high, but for the midrange, where human voices and the majority of instruments are concentrated, they sound very natural and open.

[jdm56]

I guess I should have confined the question to accuracy, because subjectively, who knows? By definition, there can be no "subjective" best -anything. But if we limit the question to accuracy, or faithfulness to the recording, I think all the points go to controlled dispersion camp, which includes horns, line-source arrays and dipoles.

Of course that leads to the next question: Do 2-channel recordings need some seasoning from the speakers to sound "right"? Seasoning they don't get from controlled disperion designs. I think you could make a pretty good case for that, at least with many recordings. Definitive Technology speakers sound very good, imo. I've never owned any, but I'm just calling it like I hear it. I've never heard a pair that didn't sound VERY good. Mind you, I've got LS2's and I love em. I'm just playing devil's advocate here.

[jdm56]

Loudspeakers are just a "simulation" device. No quantity or type or arrangement of pistons moving on one axis can actually re-create the physical acoustic event of violins, guitar strings, and piano sounding boards, and drumskins, and horns radiating sound into some space. Can't be done, and no designer would pretend to attempt it. What CAN be done with pistons and panels and such, is to attempt to fool you through rough simulation. Being then a simulation of real music, there are COUNTLESS varieties and means of attempting the "trick." What you see with the plethora of loudspeaker designs is the imagination of the various tricksters. The idea that loudspeaker designers are attempting "accuracy" of some actual acoustic event is simply preposterous on every level. Now, they might say they are trying to "accurately" represent an incoming electrical signal - that's a different statement. The signal itself is a transmogrified version of the acoustic event which has been transposed in form and energy. So, in short, everyone can be right.

Reproducing the electrical signal, that's what I mean by accuracy, too. Reproducing it without adding or taking away anything. That is the only kind of true accuracy a loudspeaker designer can aspire to. But that still leaves the question about the limitations of that two-channel signal. I think many designers recognize those limitations and attempt to correct for it with the speakers; by bouncing sound around the room in such a way as to more closely approach the original, live acoustic event. Isn't that the essence of what Amar Bose had in mind?[:S]

[Islander]

You could make an analogy with cars. Front-wheel drive, rear-wheel drive, all-wheel drive: which is "best"? They all work and they all make some people happy. Maybe that's the most important thing.

[jdm56]

You could make an analogy with cars. Front-wheel drive, rear-wheel drive, all-wheel drive: which is "best"? They all work and they all make some people happy. Maybe that's the most important thing.

I don't quite buy the car analogy. I can see it to a point, but the main difference is that speakers are attempting to recreate a prior acoustic event. I don't see the driving experience as a re-creation of anything.

[jdm56]

Isn't that the essence of what Amar Bose had in mind?

Probably. Let's say you wanted to simulate being at the Spanish Steps in Rome. One guy hands you a super high resolution 4 x 5 color photo taken with a normal lens, another guy hands you a giant wall poster, but it's very bitty looking, like a newpaper photo, another guy gives you a 35mm slide to project, another guy gives you an 8mm movie, and yet some other guy gives you an oil painting he made when he visited. Everyone thinks they've done their job perfectly. Whichever gives you the best feeling of Rome wins. I doubt any will fool you into thinking you ARE in Rome.

Maybe it comes down to the question of accuracy or faithfulness to what. Accuracy to the recorded information (controlled directivity), or accuracy to the perceived intent of the artist and/or recordist (pretty much everything else); or "subjective accuracy" if you will.[*-)]

[Islander]

You could make an analogy with cars. Front-wheel drive, rear-wheel drive, all-wheel drive: which is "best"? They all work and they all make some people happy. Maybe that's the most important thing.

I don't quite buy the car analogy. I can see it to a point, but the main difference is that speakers are attempting to recreate a prior acoustic event. I don't see the driving experience as a re-creation of anything.

Driving is not a re-creation, but it's a task that can be accomplished using various technologies, each of which has its fans, just as each type of speaker (or amp, or turntable, and so on) has its fans. There is no ultimate, so you choose what works best for you.

[Edgy]

[jacksonbart]

I do believe the Steelers will be right this Sunday and the Cardinals will be wrong.

[richinlr]

Having just come from Eminent Technology LFT 8's to La Scalas, I may actually be closer to this whole situation than you might imagine. The ET's are true dipolars aand, as such, are really completely the opposite of La Scalas. The ET's do have 'air' and the La Scalas have pinpoint accuracy. However, there is more to the equation than 'open' and the La Scalas will clearly illustrate the difference. One of the first things that struck me so long ago when I was a teenager is that the Klipsch Heritage models have something that other speakers simply do not have - the sound is 'big.' In fact, I find the sound so big that I don't miss the openess that the ETs have. After hearing my new La Scalas for a while the ET's sound small rather than open. Does this make sense?

[jdm56]

Did you get a pair of LS2's from Vann's? If so, congratulations!

I agree that horns do tend to sound bigger. But I've put small a/d/s/ speakers in room corners and they sound huge. Of course, the imaging goes to pot, but they do sound big. It's a nice set-up if you really only listen as background music. Plus it keeps the speakers out of the way for a high WAF.[] But, I digress...

Your ET's...do they use an 8" woofer and a dipole ribbon tweeter? If so, they are rather directional, I would think. But I'm sure the rear radiation from the tweeter adds a lot of air. Still, I would call those a controlled radiation design, due to the fact they aspire to relatively narrow dispersion in the front. Maybe nobody else would call them that, but I would![] I'm sure they sound much different than the klipsch, though.

[richinlr]

Did you get a pair of LS2's from Vann's? If so, congratulations!

I agree that horns do tend to sound bigger. But I've put small a/d/s/ speakers in room corners and they sound huge. Of course, the imaging goes to pot, but they do sound big. It's a nice set-up if you really only listen as background music. Plus it keeps the speakers out of the way for a high WAF. But, I digress...

Your ET's...do they use an 8" woofer and a dipole ribbon tweeter? If so, they are rather directional, I would think. But I'm sure the rear radiation from the tweeter adds a lot of air. Still, I would call those a controlled radiation design, due to the fact they aspire to relatively narrow dispersion in the front. Maybe nobody else would call them that, but I would! I'm sure they sound much different than the klipsch, though.

I got LS2's from Custom Audio in Little Rock.

The ET's do use an 8" woofer and are good for about 25Hz if you get them set in the right place. Interesting you should refer to the tweeter as a dipole ribbon. The term I would have used is quasi-ribbon because unlike a true ribbon, the ET tweeter has the diaphragm attached on the sides along its full length. The dispersion is reported to be almost perfect dipolar. I sent an email to Bruce Thigpen (the designer) a long time ago asking him for tips on set up. He said that, while sitting in my listening seat I should look at the point on the side walls where a reflection would occur and place a difuser there. He obviously feels that there is enough energy coming from the sides to warrant some wall treatment. I am not sure they could be called directional. I can see that the the tweeter will tend to 'beam' more that the midrange but the tweeters are crossed somewhere around 10K so much of the upper energy still comes from the midrange.

[jdm56]

I've read a bit about those speakers. They are a very interesting design. I am surprised the x/o between the ribbons and the 8" cones is so high, though. I would guess the designer was trying to match the dispersion characteristics of the two drivers through the crossover range. That big 8" driver is going to beam over the top of it's passband (not necessarily a bad thing, imo). Of course, the proof of the design is in the listening, and I've read lots of good things about them. You obviously like them!

[bodcaw boy]

yes.

[Don Richard]

If someone was going to design a loudspeaker, three questions will determine the path:

1. How loud must it play?

2. How low must the bass go?

3. How much distortion is acceptable?

You forgot the most important criterion - the room that the speaker is going into.

That is also the answer to the OP. Some speakers excel in large rooms, some in small ones.

Some speakers work well in acoustically dead rooms, others in live rooms. If your room is very live, the more directional speaker will perform better.

A less directional speaker will interact with the room to a greater degree, sometimes causing an illusion of spaciousness that is not on the recording. Placement is more critical with this type speaker for best accuracy.

[richinlr]

I've read a bit about those speakers. They are a very interesting design. I am surprised the x/o between the ribbons and the 8" cones is so high, though. I would guess the designer was trying to match the dispersion characteristics of the two drivers through the crossover range. That big 8" driver is going to beam over the top of it's passband (not necessarily a bad thing, imo). Of course, the proof of the design is in the listening, and I've read lots of good things about them. You obviously like them!

To add a little more clarity, the speakers are three-way with an 8 inch woofer for bass up to 180 Hz crossing to a midrange planar magnetic driver about 6" wide by about 21 in.tall. The mid driver then crosses at 10K to the tweeter. Most of of the music is coming out of the midgrange.

Unlike Maggies, the ET's have magnets on both sides instead of only one side and the panel is made from about 1/16 welded plate steel rather than sheet metal as in the Maggies. IMHO the ET's are the ultimate expression of the planar magnetic design. I moved to the ET's from Maggie MG3b's and the ET's are definitely better. They have virtually zero coloration.

But, LS2's are better!

[richinlr]

"That is also the answer to the OP. Some speakers excel in large rooms, some in small ones."

You hit the nail on the head. My old ET's were absolutely fantastic in a small den about 9 x 13 and spaced at about 90" apart. La Scalas would simply kill that room. I now live in a house with a 20 x 20 den and my HT and WAF required placing them at about 130 in. apart. They got lost in the room but the La Scalas love that room (but will overpower it if driven harder).