Flat Response

[Zilch]

Re: Flat Response

Not so . . . with the recommended toe-in and position the listener generally does not hear a first (specular) reflection from the side.

See Toole Fig. 16.6; in his setup, substantially similar to Linkwitz's, the angle is 73°. Look where that falls on Geddes's Orion directivity map. The further back we sit, the worse it becomes.

[It ain't workin' by this evidence.... :( ]

[Deward Hastings]

Re: Flat Response

FACT is, Linkwitz's niche is concert hall realism

I doubt he'd argue with that . . . his goal *is* to reproduce the "live" experience (but not just "concert hall") in the "home" environment. We used to call it "High Fidelity music reproduction".

Which leaves the question of what *you* call speakers that *do not* produce an accurate perceptual recreation of the original ? ? ?

[Deward Hastings]

Re: Flat Response

See Toole Fig. 16.6; in his setup

Where does Toole show an ORION setup ? ? ?

[Guest]

Re: Flat Response

If you're going to cherry pick . . . at least do it well. The Revel M20 drops 2dB from 1k up (on axis), the NHT 3 drops 1-2 from 1k to 5k, before it peaks at about 9, the MB Quart drops a dB from 1k to 5k, as does the Dynaudio C1 (ignoring the dip at 6k), the PSB Alpha drops 1 or 2 db . . .

Some of them have a "sizzle bump" around 10k, but even with that the average tends down, 1-2 dB/decade.

Revel 2009 (latest and greatest)


NHT (active, former flagship)


MBQuart (only one)


Dynaudio C1 (cherry pick attempt)


Dynaudio (the rest)





PSB (attempted cherry pick, 2006)

2008 model


KEF (2007)


PARADIGM (2007)


:rolleyes:

[Deward Hastings]

Re: Flat Response

Vintage audio enthusiasts will tell you they all suck; all modern designs are too bright for their taste.

It has little to do with "vintage" and a lot to do with accurate reproduction. Hype and sizzle may sell, but it does not replicate the real thing . . .

Spend some time at orchestra preformances or (even better) rehearsals (where you may be able to move around a bit), and you won't find "too bright" all that realistic at home. People with a taste for accurate reproduction tend to find "too bright" downright annoying . . .

[Zilch]

Re: Flat Response

Which leaves the question of what *you* call speakers that *do not* produce an accurate perceptual recreation of the original ? ? ?

Good ones are "accurate" if they reproduce the program content accurately; more accurate than those which artificially enhance it.

Where does Toole show an ORION setup ? ? ?

Op. cit. with respect to the first ipsilateral....

[Deward Hastings]

Re: Flat Response

:rolleyes:

Cherry picking again? Thought you said not to do that . . . :D

[MSaturn]

Re: Flat Response

No, he was defending my examples. Those are all popular, well-regarded speakers .. except perhaps the MBQuart, by simple virtue of less exposure.

The KEF actually RISES up high.

[Zilch]

Re: Flat Response

Spend some time at orchestra preformances or (even better) rehearsals (where you may be able to move around a bit), and you won't find "too bright" all that realistic at home. People with a taste for accurate reproduction tend to find "too bright" downright annoying . . .

You're citing an acoustic concert hall as the absolute standard of realism? It's not, and is ITSELF an artificial listening environment, contrived for and dedicated to a specific musical genre....

[Deward Hastings]

Re: Flat Response

Good ones are "accurate" if they reproduce the program content accurately

But that's the rub . . . they don't . . . not, at least, if you make the reference the original sound as perceived. We're trying to reproduce the original perception, aren't we ? ? ? not just some electrical signal ? ? ?

Op. cit. with respect to the first ipsilateral....

16.6 doesn't show any ORION placement that I've ever seen, or seen recomended . . .

[Deward Hastings]

Re: Flat Response

You're citing an acoustic concert hall as the absolute standard of realism. It's not, and is ITSELF an artificial listening environment dedicated to a specific musical genre....

It is the sound within that environment that we are trying to reproduce. It doesn't matter what "musical genre" is being played . . . Bach or bluegrass. Banjo is bright enough without "too bright" loudspeakers reproducing it . . . (harpsichord doesn't need any hype or sizzle either).

[Guest]

Re: Flat Response

Some recordings have it, some don't.

All stereo recordings are artificial spatial constructs. ALL.

It's not always necessary to "fake" it.

"Fake" spaciousness with an artificial spatial construct? The whole thing is fake!
The main spatial difference with dipole vs monopole is depth perception. 2D vs 3D. Otherwise, not much different at all.
Pinpoint imaging?? That's as unrealistic/"fake" as it gets

No matter what, we can't get LEV two-channel, but with intelligent application of existing knowledge, we CAN enhance ASW spaciousness WITHOUT compromising imaging and accuracy....

"Compromising" Imaging? Accuracy??? To what?

[Guest]

Re: Flat Response

Cherry picking again? Thought you said not to do that . . . :D

Still zero evidence/facts/data to support your claims/opinions? :rolleyes:;)

[Deward Hastings]

Re: Flat Response

The KEF actually RISES up high.

And it's not the most shrill in the bunch, either. I'm sure it sounds "fine" in a dead room . . . (with the treble control turned down . . .).

But that's "cherry picking", and AJ says not to do that . . . :D

[Zilch]

Re: Flat Response

But that's the rub . . . they don't . . . not, at least, if you make the reference the original sound as perceived. We're trying to reproduce the original perception, aren't we ? ? ? not just some electrical signal ? ? ?

It's the same conundrum; the paradigm is wrong and artificial enhancement tailored to one experience is inappropriate for others. It may even be inappropriate for different renditions of the same program material.

16.6 doesn't show any ORION placement that I've ever seen, or seen recomended . . .

In what respect? The front wall does not relate to the first ipsilateral shown in (b) at 73°; the speaker is toed in to the central sweet spot. What do YOU want to call it, 90°? In theory, that should be 0dB according to the neat figure eight typically drawn. In reality, it apparently isn't, and the eight is flattened in Linkwitz's own illustration of it....