I suspect they've done as well as they could have given the interesting design choices.
Sony's brand new nearfield speakers SA-Z1. I would love to try them one day:
View attachment 64943
View attachment 64944
View attachment 64968View attachment 64969
Some well known odd speakers which look like they were brought back from the future.View attachment 64973
A well known vintage model for those old enough to remember.
Hopefully I don't offend any DQ10 owners.
So which design is more unusual. The DQ10 or the Quad you wished you had which is why you buy the DQ10?
It would definitely work better with amplitude shading and delay, I agree.
To your specific points:
Moreover, if they were using such an array on a passive design, I'm inclined to think it remains marketing BS now, as it must have been back then.
- Even combined with delay/amplitude shading, three is not a large enough number of drivers in the array to yield coherent/useful vertical directivity control.
- The "assist tweeters" have 14mm diaphragms. I find it impossible to imagine they allow the central tweeter to be crossed over any lower than it otherwise would be.
- Similarly, I can't imagine they improve SPL/THD on the low end either.
I do accept that they would likely widen horizontal dispersion at very high frequencies, but that isn't listed as a design goal.
This seems to be a naked DQ10:
View attachment 65082
Not what I expected, whatever that was...
Ass end of a naked Quad being refurbished:
View attachment 65083
Well, I own a pair of "ESL-57s" but no DQ10s.So which design is more unusual. The DQ10 or the Quad you wished you had which is why you buy the DQ10?
I know what I think about the sound of both.
I thought it odd you'd try and emulate the look of a 2 way ESL that is sort of like a line source using a 5 way that looks like it was just slap-dashed to fit behind the Quad-like facade.
Hopefully I don't offend any DQ10 owners. I've a couple friends that own them.
Quad ESL57
View attachment 65067
I had a pair in the copper grill version Quads.
View attachment 65068
They definitely tried to trade on the shape of the Quads. The part I don't understand is three tweeters.So which design is more unusual. The DQ10 or the Quad you wished you had which is why you buy the DQ10?
I know what I think about the sound of both.
I thought it odd you'd try and emulate the look of a 2 way ESL that is sort of like a line source using a 5 way that looks like it was just slap-dashed to fit behind the Quad-like facade.
Hopefully I don't offend any DQ10 owners. I've a couple friends that own them.
Quad ESL57
View attachment 65067
I had a pair in the copper grill version Quads.
View attachment 65068
Please correct me if I'm wrong but since a smaller 0.75" tweeters will have to be high-passed at a higher frequency and their dispersion will be wider at the bottom of its passband than that of the main 1" tweeter at the same frequency, isn't it plausible that using them in combination will reduce beaming or raise the frequency at which the speaker starts to become more directional?
When I was shopping for my first full blown HT system, these speakers were getting some press because they had done well in a magazine's speaker shootout ...
http://norh.com/Norh_Loudspeakers/Marble_4.html
View attachment 55966
Too be honest, I was pretty infatuated with these speakers and was seriously considering purchasing them for the HT room. Their shape, however, presented some placement challenges, so I didn't pull trigger. Good thing too. Here's the Soundstage measurements for the Norh 6.9 - an upscale version of the speaker pictured above ...
Dodged a bullet I think.
The marketing spiel was they had created a phased array for superb imaging. They made a big deal out of saying the combined total helped with diffraction effects as I recall. The claim being that like a Quad it sounded like a single driver (yes I know original Quads were actually a 2 way). They did not make mirror imaged pairs initially. Later they did make a right and left with mirror image positioning of the drivers.They definitely tried to trade on the shape of the Quads. The part I don't understand is three tweeters.
I listened to these back in the day but was not especially moved by them. Actually, the only speakers I can remember from that era are the big 8 panel Maggies. Further, I can't remember anything which sounded better than my LS50's with subs. They get no love at ASR, but I thought the Triton 1R's had potential. Then again, lots of folks like to trash the LS50's. It's a hobby around here.The marketing spiel was they had created a phased array for superb imaging. They made a big deal out of saying the combined total helped with diffraction effects as I recall. The claim being that like a Quad it sounded like a single driver (yes I know original Quads were actually a 2 way). They did not make mirror imaged pairs initially. Later they did make a right and left with mirror image positioning of the drivers.
Maybe we can get someone with a pair to send to Amir. Would really like to know how those would do on the Klippel.
Read this 3 paragraph mini-review by JGH who says the Quads are a tiny bit better, but these are something special.
A couple of back views from this web site: http://www.vintagehificlub.com/quick-informations/dahlquist-dq-10-loudspeaker/
View attachment 65219
View attachment 65220
So which design is more unusual. The DQ10 or the Quad you wished you had which is why you buy the DQ10?
I know what I think about the sound of both.
I thought it odd you'd try and emulate the look of a 2 way ESL that is sort of like a line source using a 5 way that looks like it was just slap-dashed to fit behind the Quad-like facade.
Hopefully I don't offend any DQ10 owners. I've a couple friends that own them.
Quad ESL57
View attachment 65067
I had a pair in the copper grill version Quads.
View attachment 65068
Me too.@Hugo9000 Before I scrolled down, I thought the first picture was of floorstanders and a huge egglike sub.