DrWho Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 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? What if the different approaches actually end up accomplishing many of the same things? I think there is more commonality to the various techniques in light of how they are best implemented differently. If you can agree with that, then I would propose that there is a single best approach. I think if you start by prioritizing the problems, that the most natural solution reveals itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrWho Posted February 3, 2009 Share Posted February 3, 2009 cabbage Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdm56 Posted February 4, 2009 Author Share Posted February 4, 2009 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! OK. I was missing that they were 3-ways. I didn't remember that from what I had read about them. I did think 10k was a bit on the high side for an 8" woofer![] --Like, about two or three octaves.[^o)][] I'd love to hear some! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coytee Posted February 4, 2009 Share Posted February 4, 2009 Which one is right, which one is wrong? Obviously... the one on the conveyor belt... [ap] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russ69 Posted February 8, 2009 Share Posted February 8, 2009 I'll take some heat for this. No, there is no perfect way to reproduce sound but the best systems I've ever heard were large, in-efficient and bipolar. This would include the large Maggies, large electrostatics and the big Infinity systems (IRS). This is the exact opposite of the Klipsch/Horn designs. On the other hand, I'm just not interested in the expensive amps and giant rooms these systems require, been there done that. I enjoy my more modest system much more. Thanx, Russ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdm56 Posted February 9, 2009 Author Share Posted February 9, 2009 I've heard very good sound from Maggies and Martin-Logans, but to me there was always a deal breaker. And that was the way the dynamics flattened out when the volume hit a certain level. True, below that threshold they can be magic, but they just don't float my boat, especially for zee rawk und roll. I guess it comes down to personal preference. Different kinds of music come through better with particular types of speakers. So if you listen to only rock at life-like levels, you're apt to prefer a different design than the dude (or dudette) who only listens to chamber music at background levels. My problem is I like too many different kinds of music too much to want to rob Peter to pay Paul. I want it all, baby! Fortunately, my LS2's (with subs) come pretty darned close to giving it to me!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Islander Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 I guess it comes down to personal preference. Different kinds of music come through better with particular types of speakers. So if you listen to only rock at life-like levels, you're apt to prefer a different design than the dude (or dudette) who only listens to chamber music at background levels. My problem is I like too many different kinds of music too much to want to rob Peter to pay Paul. I want it all, baby! Fortunately, my LS2's (with subs) come pretty darned close to giving it to me!! Exactly! If I go to the trouble and expense of setting up a good-quality system, I don't want to feel that it's only able to play certain kinds of music properly and not others. I want it all, too. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
russ69 Posted February 10, 2009 Share Posted February 10, 2009 The big Maggies can rock, it takes about a kilowatt a side just for the mid panels and some Infinity servo sub towers from the RS system or some other custom set-up. You have to pay to play........ Thanx, Russ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.