Aha, but then you have at least tested a couple of Snell.I had a pair of E-II's and they lasted precisely a fortnight (actually a weekend, the rest was treying to shift them on)! Ghastly crossover region 'edge' to the sound unless heard in a mid to far field and driven by Audio Innovation amps which masked it. They boomed too set on the floor and needed low 'Pirate' stands - all part of a UK mini cult in the mid 80's I remember. I look at the current Audio Note expensive knock-offs of these old models and wince with the memory as well as the price tags...
To the thread subject, I felt the rear tweeter did nothing really. Maybe it should have been put on top perhaps to add some image reducing 'air'?
My guess is that speakers with rear-firing tweeter are best suited if there are several in the listening sofa. But if you sit alone in the "king seat", sweetspot and listen, it is not an advantage, maybe even a disadvantage.
Do you think that may be true?
Man, you're taking me back in time! I and several of my friends experimented with rear "ambient" tweeters (and mids) in the 80's. I never liked them out of phase (dipole) but sometimes liked them in-phase (omni). And when I say "sometimes", I mean rather rarely.
Other people felt differently. But everyone agreed on one point: the design could be optimized for a certain listening position. If used for a location where the listener moved around in a residential room, the effect was annoyingly inconsistent.
You need to take my opinion in context: I've always liked a more directional soundfield. I dislike omnis, bipoles and dipoles. So when I say that other people felt differently, I mean that some definitely thought that the effect was nice. Looking back, I'd say that roughly half the listeners felt this way. Jim
Weren't the Snells designed by Kevin Voecs, now with Harman?
I did like the Snell Type B.. back in the days ...
Your post would very well also fit in this thread because there is a lot of talk in it that speakers should be listened to and not just study its data / measurements:
I did not think of that. By the way, praise to Amir and everyone who performs with various measurements and tests.I did not have sophisticated measuring instruments in those days. I was young and impecunious. But looking back, I believe that every single one of the characteristic that I heard then would now be easily measured and the cause identified. That would include comb filtering from reflections. I may be wrong on that, but I seriously doubt it. The measurements we see on this website are different from fullfield radiation measurements that take the complete environment into account. I have a great deal of respect for professionals who perform those measurements. My brain hurts just thinking about it. Jim
I did not think of that. By the way, praise to Amir and everyone who performs with various measurements and tests.
Then you should interpret the results. This was an eye opener for me. This for example I did not know:
I cannot comment on the Snells but Kevin Voecks, formerly of Harman/Revel, was on the team that developed the Ultima line. The first Ultima Studio and Ultima Salon sported rear-mounted tweeters which, iirc, were intended to improve the speaker's dispersion in the MF-HF crossover range. No such element was included in the successor Studio2 or Salon2 but the cabinet designs were drastically different.Weren't the Snells designed by Kevin Voecs, now with Harman?
I did like the Snell Type B.. back in the days ...
Anyone have experience with such speakers? What are the advantages and disadvantages?
Thanks Duke, that was interesting! Fun with a different view of it.With your speakers, it is a fixed setting with a passive crossover filter or you have the option to regulate it, similar like Snell Type E / III? Do you have a picture of your speakers? It would be exciting to see.I've been manufacturing speakers with rear-firing tweeters for about fourteen years, but mine don't look like the Snell. Mine use horns.
One thing a designer can do with a rear-firing tweeter is, make the power response (the summed off-axis energy) smoother. For instance, the Snell's front-firing tweeter will have a pattern which narrows as frequency increases, resulting in a spectral imbalance between the direct sound and the reflection field. A rear-firing tweeter's response can be tailored to compensate for this.
A rear-firing tweeter's contribution will decrease the direct-to-reflected energy ratio, which may or may not be desirable depending on the specifics.
Depending on the reflection path lengths, a rear-firing tweeter will often shift the temporal "center of gravity" of the reflections back in time a little bit, which can affect the spatial qualities.
A rear-firing tweeter tends to increase the sense of spaciousness, but if it is too loud, it will degrade clarity and image precision.
And a rear-firing tweeter (with its associated high-pass filter) redistributes driver cost. So for equal driver cost, less money can be put into the front-firing drivers.
Obviously I think a rear-firing tweeter can be a worthwhile net improvement since I've been doing it for a long time, and obviously I'm in the minority.