Update: I've done a more detailed and understandable analysis of the time-shifted sounds here.
A title that contains the word "high-end", it can only be hard-hitting enlightenment for an audiophile audience.
So, let's take a closer look at Professor Kunchur's example, which should prove how clearly audible differences in the time domain (and thus in speakers without time aligned drivers) are.
To demonstrate this, he plays a 440Hz burst tone and its overtone (880Hz) in the video - case (A).
Then he plays the same tones again, but with a time delayed 880Hz burst tone - which is supposed to represent the time delay of e.g. woofer and midrange driver, with non time aligned driver - case (C).
In the video I can hear the difference very clearly - OMG, I can throw away all my non time aligned speakers - so all of them
Hmm, however, no information at all is given in the video about the signals used. So, I have recorded both sample A and C.
The two stereo audio tracks look like this:
Let's take a closer look at the part marked in blue in sound sample (C).
For this purpose I have imported the .wav file as impulse response into Arta. In the green part only the 440Hz fundamental tone can be heard on the recording, the red part then contains both tones 440Hz and 880Hz. The green part produces a "whoop" sound which makes it much easier to distinguish between sample A and C.
It seems the green part is supposed to represent the period where the 440Hz tone is heard alone.
The period from the start of the "quiet/low" 440Hz signal to the start of both tones is 16ms (left diagram, gate length).
In the example (C) shown in the video, the 880Hz signal starts about 5.5m later than the 440Hz signal. I haven't measured the dimensions of my speaker for a while, but the offset from woofer to midrange is most likely less than 5.5m for all my speakers.
Professor Kunchur should re-record his case study (C), on which his whole argumentation is based, and then choose a realistic delay of perhaps 5-10cm not 550cm.
Phew, with this I don't have to throw away all my non time aligned speakers after all.... until the next video.
A title that contains the word "high-end", it can only be hard-hitting enlightenment for an audiophile audience.
So, let's take a closer look at Professor Kunchur's example, which should prove how clearly audible differences in the time domain (and thus in speakers without time aligned drivers) are.
To demonstrate this, he plays a 440Hz burst tone and its overtone (880Hz) in the video - case (A).
Then he plays the same tones again, but with a time delayed 880Hz burst tone - which is supposed to represent the time delay of e.g. woofer and midrange driver, with non time aligned driver - case (C).
In the video I can hear the difference very clearly - OMG, I can throw away all my non time aligned speakers - so all of them
The two stereo audio tracks look like this:
Let's take a closer look at the part marked in blue in sound sample (C).
For this purpose I have imported the .wav file as impulse response into Arta. In the green part only the 440Hz fundamental tone can be heard on the recording, the red part then contains both tones 440Hz and 880Hz. The green part produces a "whoop" sound which makes it much easier to distinguish between sample A and C.
It seems the green part is supposed to represent the period where the 440Hz tone is heard alone.
The period from the start of the "quiet/low" 440Hz signal to the start of both tones is 16ms (left diagram, gate length).
In the example (C) shown in the video, the 880Hz signal starts about 5.5m later than the 440Hz signal. I haven't measured the dimensions of my speaker for a while, but the offset from woofer to midrange is most likely less than 5.5m for all my speakers.
Professor Kunchur should re-record his case study (C), on which his whole argumentation is based, and then choose a realistic delay of perhaps 5-10cm not 550cm.
Last edited:
