See the resonances in speaker M?
I see interference combing from nearfield measure of a very large tweeter.
Last edited:
See the resonances in speaker M?
Here are the ratings from the comparison.I see interference.combing from nearfield measure of a very large tweeter.
No, which is I only speculate based on the physics of driver size vs. sound wavelength.Do you know of any measurements of the bigger Maggies that show this dispersion width?
Here are the ratings from the comparison.
Once you unblind yourself, none of those graphs matters anymoreThis chart is even better!
View attachment 105716
https://seanolive.blogspot.com/2008/12/loudspeaker-preferences-of-trained.html
Almost rated 0 by the Harman Trained listeners.
I am only left to wonder what would receive a lower rating, and what it might sound like.
The story sounds nice, but reality is quite different.
How accurately do you think you can suspend a very thin diaphragm perfectly centered between two plate electrodes? How uniform do you think the thickness and other material properties of the diaphragm are? Is there any residual stress in the diaphragm from its forming operation? Is the diaphragm uniformly tensioned? How uniform is the deposition of the conductive layer, which determines the uniformity of the electrical conductivity of the diaphragm, and therefore the electric field and the electrostatic force. Any of these will result in the diaphragm not moving in a flat plane.
Here are FR plots of 4 different speakers from a well known speaker comparison test. See the resonances in speaker M? Want to guess what type of speaker it was?
View attachment 105688
Once you unblind yourself, none of those graphs matters anymore
https://www.avsforum.com/threads/b-...toole-sean-olive.2914582/page-4#post-54711918Since the author didn’t reveal the speakers and you seem to know, why don’t you enlighten us?
I find most people have the same subjective idea and understand the idea of speed much more widely than PRAT.
Take tone-colour for instance. What I've noticed from listening to top-notch instruments played by first-rate musicians is how beautiful they sounded. I took clarinet lessons from a virtuoso and used to be transfixed when he demonstrated passages which he played through his own instrument. They sounded utterly ravishing, completely at odds with the sound I was getting from my inferior student instrument which was drab, impoverished harmonically, and uninspiring. The sound he got was, (wait for it!) "magical". And the same thing happened every time I heard high-quality unamplified instruments: there was an unearthly beauty to the sound. And so when I started buying quality audio to play music through I was hoping to get some of this beauty any time I wanted in my very own room! Unfortunately, what I heard was a pale imitation. I NEVER heard clarinet sound like the one I heard my teacher play. Mostly, it sounded closer to what I'd got from my own poor instrument. And even expensive gear rarely came close to transmitting the magic. Strings rarely have that "je ne sais quoi" magical glow; trumpet rarely has that golden uninhibited "blare". And yet most audiophiles seemed to have no idea on what I was on about when I talked about the reproduced sound seeming like it was in black and white. That's exactly what most playback systems sound like to me: as if someone's turned down the colour and those expensive, highly-sought after instruments have been downgraded into cheap knockoffs. So when I hear that ALL you need is a flat frequency response and everything's hunky dory I wonder if I'm living in the same universe.
So you're saying that nothing exists unless we can measure i?. I can think of plenty of very real things that can't be measured: the beauty of a melody; the aptness of a turn of phrase; the sense of the "right" word. In other words, the things that give this world a sense of wonder.
While I agree that it is probably impossible for any playback system to completely capture the original sound, I HAVE heard speakers that capture much of the tone-colour magic I was referring to. But they're rare, and the JBL is unequivocally not one of them.
Reminds me that my friend, who has been reviewing gear including tons of speakers, for decades, now has the Klipsch La Scalas in his home.
He talked about the various ways they are colored, deficient, can't image with much precision etc. Nonetheless, they leave him with more of an impression of hearing "live musicians playing" than any other speaker he's had in his home.
How does he put up with the lack of bass in La Scalas?
My guess is that [lifelike timbre] has more to do with the typically narrow dispersion pattern [of electrostats].
Ideally blinded live vs reproduced experiments would help give some solid objective evidence telling us if one speaker design was able to sound closer to the real thing. But not many of those around it seems.
Also, why white Burgundies and Chablis seem to 'channel' the limestone and marl components in the soil, even tho chemists cannot detect it in the wine..
Not over much of their frequency range, and not that many of the complete speakers either.The best dynamic drivers have distortion around 0.1% at normal listening levels
I agree.I think "citation needed" is operative phrase there
I see interference combing from nearfield measure of a very large tweeter.
Sort of plausible, is there any study trying to show why that may be?My guess is that it has more to do with the typically narrow dispersion pattern.