|
Post by boomzilla on Feb 11, 2020 19:45:34 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by lehighvalleyjeff on Feb 11, 2020 21:02:40 GMT -5
Well written article. From my last 3 years with two pairs of Legacy Audio Whisper XDS and room correction and time alignment handled digitally through their Wavelet processor I respectfully disagree about the abilities of the DSP to correct the room issues that open baffle inherently creates. Bohmer Audio in Sweden partnered with Legacy Audio and unlike the traditional room correction, it is able to realign the timing of all frequencies to hit the listener’s ear simultaneously. Without the advanced processing of the Wavelet processor / crossover the speakers sound ok but once dialed in with the room correction the result is very three dimensional and holographic with a wide soundstage that also goes very deep as well. I’ve heard a few competing products that try to digitally correct room issues (minidsp, Dirac & audessey) but I felt that none of them were able to bring the “live in the venue” effect quite on the level as legacy although the Marantz 8805 with the new version of Audessey was very impressive listening to 2 channel.
Enjoyed reading your article as always!
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Honorary Emofest Scribe
Posts: 14,690
|
Post by klinemj on Feb 11, 2020 21:16:03 GMT -5
I'll take my Maggies with a sub over anything else I've heard...with no room correction they sound magnificent.
When I listen to almost all other speakers, I feel like I'm listening to boxes. Sure, room placement on Maggies is more important, but...I have that degree of freedom and it's worth it.
So...is the technology flawed? Only if one doesn't have the room to make them work right or doesn't take advantage of the room's interactions.
Mark
|
|
DYohn
Emo VIPs
Posts: 18,333
|
Post by DYohn on Feb 12, 2020 8:17:24 GMT -5
Flawed technology? No. Indeed they are not a "TECHNOLOGY," they are an application of technology and like all applications have their strengths and their weaknesses.
|
|
|
Post by rbk123 on Feb 12, 2020 9:26:08 GMT -5
Everything is a trade-off. Just more audiophoolery/clickbait.
|
|
|
Post by boomzilla on Feb 12, 2020 9:33:42 GMT -5
Yes - everything IS a trade off. And I wasn't disparaging open baffle speakers (in fact, I LOVE Magnepans and some electrostatics. But used without sufficient consideration of the back wave, they won't be at their best. Clickbait? Yes - every for-profit website lives and dies by viewer clicks. They DO sell advertising, after all...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Feb 12, 2020 9:35:37 GMT -5
These are flawed technology?
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,902
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 12, 2020 10:11:45 GMT -5
Everything has trade-offs... And, as usual, there are two sides to every argument... There are really two questions: 1) What exactly are the tradeoffs involved? 2) Do the benefits justify the tradeoffs to you?
Most police these days drive cars... because of their obvious benefits. And, for myself, and many folks, they're really the only practical way to get around.
But, in some places, the police use motorcycles (and many civilians prefer them in spite of the trade-offs)... And, in some places, the police still use horses... And sometimes even Ginger scooters... And, in Manhattan, many people own no transportation at all, and rely on public transportation to get around.
(And, as I recall, for several years the land speed record was held by a steam locomotive, and then by a steam powered car.)
And, yes, open baffle speakers have some very serious trade-offs that many people consider to be "deal breakers"... For example, the open back does cause extremely severe bass cancellation at low frequencies, which is why you won't find many people playing pipe organ music on Magneplanars without a subwoofer... In fact, by definition, the bass response of open baffle speakers drops off sharply at low frequencies. So you need to compensate for this: either by adding a subwoofer or by boosting the low frequencies - a lot - and adding enough power to handle the boosted signal. (Compare the output of one of those huge open-baffle speakers at 30 Hz to the output of a good sealed 10" subwoofer.)
And, while some people consider the complex interactions between the rear and front radiated sound to sound quite nice, they definitely complicate several things... (Let's set aside, for now, the question of whether they "sound like live music", whether "they accurately reproduce what's in the recording", and the relationship between those two.) Most room correction software relies on, among other things, being able to "send out specific audio waveforms and measure how and when the echoes return from room boundaries".
To be quite fair, even with sealed-baffle speakers, because room shapes and acoustics vary so much, this is a very complex process, and doesn't always work as expected.
And because, with open baffle speakers, you have sound emanating from both sides, out of phase, bouncing off various room boundaries, and then interacting, this makes the situation much more complex. (Instead of a single clear return, you tend to get a jumble of returning wavefronts, which are much more difficult to sort out... sort of like trying to focus a camera through frosted glass.)
And, yes, some room correction software and devices can deal with this situation quite effectively... However, from my experience, most room correction software is far more likely to have trouble with open baffle speakers than with sealed or ported box speakers.
And, as Boomzilla mentioned, because they interact so much with the room, open baffle speakers are much more difficult to set up properly... And, before anyone complains, I'll say it first... I am personally not a big fan of open baffle speakers... While they may deliver a sound that's "more like a live performance" I do not believe that they "accurately reproduce what's in the recording"...
I believe that, rather than accurately extracting and reproducing room acoustics present in the recording, they are "faking it" and "simulating what the original performance might have sounded like".
(In other words, in my opinion, while they may sound nice, and may even "sound like live music", they are not especially accurate.)
I personally prefer to rely on the recording to accurately deliver what was really there to begin with... and I prefer not to guess what should be there when there's something missing. However, that is obviously a personal preference, and everyone is certainly entitled to theirs.
(But, from a purely engineering perspective, if your goal is "to accurately render what's in the recording", then open baffle speakers are absolutely "the long way around".)
And also, just for the record, I personally very much like the sound of electrostatic speakers... However, to be totally honest, I consider the fact that all large electrostatic speakers are open baffle to be a serious drawback. First, I find most open baffle speakers to sound just a bit too much "open and airy" and I prefer "pinpoint imaging" Second, because, due to both size and acoustics, I don't have room in my living room for open baffle speakers to work well at all (but I have plenty of room for sealed speakers).
|
|
|
Post by boomzilla on Feb 12, 2020 10:39:04 GMT -5
These are flawed technology? I've talked to several owners tho tried to set these up - all failed and eventually sold the speakers. If you've got a room that just happens to be ideal for the speakers, then they were the best of their time. But the VAST majority never had such a room. The Infinities had problems far, far beyond their radiation pattern as well. The dual-coil woofers were a pain to keep suspended properly, the magnets of the midranges and tweeters tended to fall apart, and one needed a MONSTER amp to drive the speakers properly. So yeah, I'd definitely call the IRS system "flawed technology."
|
|
|
Post by 405x5 on Feb 12, 2020 10:49:39 GMT -5
These are flawed technology? The very set of those Infinity systems that were pictured on the cover of Stereo Review, “fell” into the hands of Bill Legall, of his own company....Millersound. Bill, who I refer to as the ultimate Infinity guy, did a ground up restoration of the speakers that had fallen from grace into a horrible state of neglect and disrepair. Even as far as to become pissing posts from a previous owners pets ( unimaginable). Now they are operating as new in one of Bill’s showcase rooms. The guy is awesome....between 2012 and 2016, Bill rebuilt all eight woofers that pump away in my own setup. Bill
|
|
|
Post by routlaw on Feb 12, 2020 14:03:44 GMT -5
Whoa! I'll be the devils advocate on this one.
The detractors on this subject are really cherry picking some of the negatives of these speakers as well as other dipole/bipole speakers while completely overlooking the negative issues surrounding box speakers, and yes they do exist. Doubt it, then pick up a copy of Vance Dickasons Loudspeaker Cookbook and read it cover to cover as I have numerous times (albeit not recently) during the years I built speakers as a hobby. Its just a different set of problems and issues to solve nothing more.
Worth noting I have owned various iterations of dipoles for more than two decades, Martin Logans Quest Z's, InnerSound Electrostatic hybrids and now my Genesis 6.1's for approximately 18 years ±. In addition I have had the pleasure of having some of the larger Genesis speakers, the 350 SE's, in my modest size room for an extended period as well. Those speakers have been installed in a room much smaller than mine nearly as long as I've owned the 6.1's and still sound incredible . The owner has never ever had one issue with the Genesis 350 SE's. By any measure setting up any of these speakers has been much easier than typical box speakers, the one exception to this might be the InnerSound electrostatic hybrids but only because those speakers have such a narrow sweet spot as in really really narrow.
The notion that a dipole speaker might have more coloration issues than a box speaker is preposterous. If not designed correctly with low level resonating materials it is a known fact that the box itself can generate nearly as much output as the drivers. This can be easily proven with accelerometer test, again referring to Vance Dickasons book. Even with the best non resonating materials some vibration=coloration can be measured. Some designers go to extreme measures to prevent this, Wilson Audio comes to mind with their X material which I understand is an epoxy resin sheet material much like circuit boards just thicker and denser. It doesn't end there, each compartment is measured for its resonant frequency then tuned via bracing or other means to eliminate that resonant frequency from the frequency spectrum that particular driver and associated compartment occupy and are designed to reproduce. I have a deep appreciation for this level of attention to detail and craft but at the end of the day, never cared for the Wilson sound and I've heard a lot of them extensively. Dynamic? Absolutely, but they also seemed dark and forboding to me, and dare I say it not alive.
Regarding accurate portrayal of the recorded music, none of us have a clue as to what that might have been like unless of course we there in the recording, mixing and mastering studios while being produced. The real conundrum here though if not outright paradox and hypocrisy of it is this: Virtually, if not all music instruments have more in common with being a dipole radiator than they will ever have with a box speaker.
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,902
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 12, 2020 15:09:01 GMT -5
I don't disagree with your assessment...
And it is absolutely true that box speakers also have drawbacks...
However I do disagree with your final statement.... "Virtually, if not all music instruments have more in common with being a dipole radiator than they will ever have with a box speaker. "
While what you said is actually true to a degree, the context is misleading.... (I'm omitting the larger issue that an instrument produces sound... while a speaker reproduces recorded sound... so the two are dissimilar in terms of what they're being asked to do.)
Most musical instruments do in fact radiate sound in multiple directions. However, virtually all that do so radiate different sounds or portions of the audio spectrum in different directions and at different times. (What you hear when standing behind a piano is not an out-of-phase copy of what you hear when standing in front of it.)
So, in order to reproduce that effect accurately, a speaker would have to be able to selectively radiate different sounds in different directions. While this would theoretically be possible with a true bipole speaker, it is not a feature of dipoles, and recordings don't contain the necessary information to do so anyway. Simply radiating all sounds in both directions at the same time is not at all the same thing...
In a real live performance, the sounds that radiate from the back of the orchestra, and reach the listener after reflecting off the rear wall, will be different than the sounds coming from the front. With a typical box speaker, as in a typical recording, those sounds will simply be largely absent. However, with a dipole speaker, they will instead be replaced with an out-of-phase copy of the sounds coming from the front. (It's somewhat analogous to making a room look bigger by placing a large mirror on one wall.)
In terms of accuracy... neither is "correct"... and you are in fact back to choosing the inaccuracy you prefer.
(Would you rather see a wall where you would prefer not to see one or hide that wall with the illusion reflected in a mirror?)
Unfortunately, as I and many others see it, the "short stick" here is in terms of size and cost. If you specify that your speaker must be able to deliver reasonable amounts of low bass... A dipole design is always going to be much larger, much less efficient, and much more expensive than a sealed box model.
However, as you point out, unless we were present when the recording was made, we have no idea what it really sounded like in the studio. And, with a multi-track recording, it's actually possible that the recording was assembled from tracks recorded at different locations and times, and no single original performance exists at all.
So it does come back largely to personal preference.
Whoa! I'll be the devils advocate on this one. The detractors on this subject are really cherry picking some of the negatives of these speakers as well as other dipole/bipole speakers while completely overlooking the negative issues surrounding box speakers, and yes they do exist. Doubt it, then pick up a copy of Vance Dickasons Loudspeaker Cookbook and read it cover to cover as I have numerous times (albeit not recently) during the years I built speakers as a hobby. Its just a different set of problems and issues to solve nothing more. Worth noting I have owned various iterations of dipoles for more than two decades, Martin Logans Quest Z's, InnerSound Electrostatic hybrids and now my Genesis 6.1's for approximately 18 years ±. In addition I have had the pleasure of having some of the larger Genesis speakers, the 350 SE's, in my modest size room for an extended period as well. Those speakers have been installed in a room much smaller than mine nearly as long as I've owned the 6.1's and still sound incredible . The owner has never ever had one issue with the Genesis 350 SE's. By any measure setting up any of these speakers has been much easier than typical box speakers, the one exception to this might be the InnerSound electrostatic hybrids but only because those speakers have such a narrow sweet spot as in really really narrow. The notion that a dipole speaker might have more coloration issues than a box speaker is preposterous. If not designed correctly with low level resonating materials it is a known fact that the box itself can generate nearly as much output as the drivers. This can be easily proven with accelerometer test, again referring to Vance Dickasons book. Even with the best non resonating materials some vibration=coloration can be measured. Some designers go to extreme measures to prevent this, Wilson Audio comes to mind with their X material which I understand is an epoxy resin sheet material much like circuit boards just thicker and denser. It doesn't end there, each compartment is measured for its resonant frequency then tuned via bracing or other means to eliminate that resonant frequency from the frequency spectrum that particular driver and associated compartment occupy and are designed to reproduce. I have a deep appreciation for this level of attention to detail and craft but at the end of the day, never cared for the Wilson sound and I've heard a lot of them extensively. Dynamic? Absolutely, but they also seemed dark and forboding to me, and dare I say it not alive. Regarding accurate portrayal of the recorded music, none of us have a clue as to what that might have been like unless of course we there in the recording, mixing and mastering studios while being produced. The real conundrum here though if not outright paradox and hypocrisy of it is this: Virtually, if not all music instruments have more in common with being a dipole radiator than they will ever have with a box speaker.
|
|
|
Post by pedrocols on Feb 12, 2020 16:25:03 GMT -5
I remember when I replaced my 3k Paradigm speakers with $800 magnepan speakers! I still have a pair of well respected speakers (Ascend Acoustics) and still preferred the dipoles for music listening.
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Honorary Emofest Scribe
Posts: 14,690
|
Post by klinemj on Feb 12, 2020 17:08:14 GMT -5
So yeah, I'd definitely call the IRS system "flawed technology." In my world of R&D expertise, I think of "technologies" and "executions/embodiments of a technology". Many times, a technology is just fine and dandy, but executions can be poor. I am not intimately familiar with the speakers you show in the picture, but it doesn't sound like flawed technology...sounds like flawed execution. As an example...I had a 1983 Alfa Romeo GTV6. Its engine had head gaskets, as...most engines do... But, in a certain era of their v6's, the head gaskets would fail within 25K miles. Head gaskets are not a flawed technology. Their execution certain was flawed... Mark
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,902
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 12, 2020 17:26:47 GMT -5
From an "absolutely pure engineering technology perspective".....
The issue is this...
At relatively high frequencies, sound acts more or less like a wavefront, and moving a surface back and forth is a reasonably good way to generate a wave front... When the surface moves forward, it generates a pressure wavefront, which moves forward through the air.
(So panel speakers are a reasonably efficient solution from an engineering perspective.)
However, at low frequencies, sound acts more like a change in the air pressure of the room, and waving a flat surface back and forth is a really poor way to change the air pressure in a room.
And even a tuned port enclosure, which includes a tuned resonant cavity in the process, is a pretty efficient way of pushing air into and out of the room, thus changing the air pressure ion the room. (But a flat panel simply moves the air around - but doesn't actually do very well at causing the air pressure to go up or down in a particular spot.)
And, yes, this suggests that, if you cut a hole in the wall, and installed the panel in it, you would have the best of both worlds. (Of course, it also sounds like the description of a big flat driver, in a big sealed box.)
I could also be really annoying and suggest that, while it's possible to design a relatively flat box speaker, in and of itself... No flat panel or dipole speaker can ever have good low bass response without the addition of electronic equalization for correct for the inherent low-frequency rolloff. (So it requires help from a second technology in order to do its job properly.)
Well, technically, you could build a dipole that was flat to 30 Hz... but it would have to be really really big....
So yeah, I'd definitely call the IRS system "flawed technology." In my world of R&D expertise, I think of "technologies" and "executions/embodiments of a technology". Many times, a technology is just fine and dandy, but executions can be poor. I am not intimately familiar with the speakers you show in the picture, but it doesn't sound like flawed technology...sounds like flawed execution. As an example...I had a 1983 Alfa Romeo GTV6. Its engine had head gaskets, as...most engines do... But, in a certain era of their v6's, the head gaskets would fail within 25K miles. Head gaskets are not a flawed technology. Their execution certain was flawed... Mark
|
|
|
Post by routlaw on Feb 12, 2020 17:32:44 GMT -5
Unfortunately, as I and many others see it, the "short stick" here is in terms of size and cost. If you specify that your speaker must be able to deliver reasonable amounts of low bass... A dipole design is always going to be much larger, much less efficient, and much more expensive than a sealed box model.
However, as you point out, unless we were present when the recording was made, we have no idea what it really sounded like in the studio. And, with a multi-track recording, it's actually possible that the recording was assembled from tracks recorded at different locations and times, and no single original performance exists at all.
So it does come back largely to personal preference.
Hmm. Reading your above comment suggest that all dipoles will inherently be more expensive than a sealed box speaker in order to obtain efficiency and deep bass. I totally disagree with this notion based upon my own experiences with some dipoles as well as box speakers. There are many box style speakers on the market that reproduce nowhere near what my Genesis 6.1's are able to do (16 hz) at 91 db efficiency. While not an inexpensive speaker in the days they were current there are tons of other brands that cost on an order magnitude more and had less efficiency and did not play as low. The InnerSound ESL's had 98 db efficiency and with the implementation of the transmission line 10" woofer played right down to 20 hz. Now granted both of these speakers are a bit larger than the Emotiva T2+ but not by as much as you might think. Lets now forget about companies such as Wilson who produce $100K speakers or more at the bat of an eye and still don't make down to 20 hz and are no more efficient than my Genesis. The point is there are many ways to skin a cat, or rather build a speaker that is both dipole, efficient and not hideously expensive. Effectively a summation of cost, efficiency and size comparing these two types of speakers becomes much more complex and diverse than your implications above would suggest. Not trying to pick a fight on this one and normally agree with most of your comments, not so much on this one however, but do respect your preference for a sealed/ported box speaker.
|
|
klinemj
Emo VIPs
Honorary Emofest Scribe
Posts: 14,690
|
Post by klinemj on Feb 12, 2020 18:15:27 GMT -5
From an "absolutely pure engineering technology perspective"..... The issue is this... At relatively high frequencies, sound acts more or less like a wavefront, and moving a surface back and forth is a reasonably good way to generate a wave front... When the surface moves forward, it generates a pressure wavefront, which moves forward through the air.
(So panel speakers are a reasonably efficient solution from an engineering perspective.)
However, at low frequencies, sound acts more like a change in the air pressure of the room, and waving a flat surface back and forth is a really poor way to change the air pressure in a room.
And even a tuned port enclosure, which includes a tuned resonant cavity in the process, is a pretty efficient way of pushing air into and out of the room, thus changing the air pressure ion the room. (But a flat panel simply moves the air around - but doesn't actually do very well at causing the air pressure to go up or down in a particular spot.)
And, yes, this suggests that, if you cut a hole in the wall, and installed the panel in it, you would have the best of both worlds. (Of course, it also sounds like the description of a big flat driver, in a big sealed box.) I could also be really annoying and suggest that, while it's possible to design a relatively flat box speaker, in and of itself... No flat panel or dipole speaker can ever have good low bass response without the addition of electronic equalization for correct for the inherent low-frequency rolloff. (So it requires help from a second technology in order to do its job properly.)
Well, technically, you could build a dipole that was flat to 30 Hz... but it would have to be really really big.... In my world of R&D expertise, I think of "technologies" and "executions/embodiments of a technology". Many times, a technology is just fine and dandy, but executions can be poor. I am not intimately familiar with the speakers you show in the picture, but it doesn't sound like flawed technology...sounds like flawed execution. As an example...I had a 1983 Alfa Romeo GTV6. Its engine had head gaskets, as...most engines do... But, in a certain era of their v6's, the head gaskets would fail within 25K miles. Head gaskets are not a flawed technology. Their execution certain was flawed... Mark You completely missed my point. I copied a post from Boom in which he cited mechanical failures of drivers of a particular model of speaker. That is an executional issue...completely separate from the general concerns related to flat panel/dipole speakers. And regarding bass response - the combination of flat panel or dipole with appropriate bass drivers can work out quite well. Exhibit A...my Maggies with a Rythmik sub. Many other examples exist, and it's a great solution and it sounds magical. Mark
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,902
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 13, 2020 11:02:02 GMT -5
I don't disagree in the least... except... 1a)
Once you've added a sub it's now a "hybrid" speaker and not "just a dipole" (and, yes, that's exactly what I would do). 1b)
Some people would say that "having a design that doesn't work right without a sub" is a flaw. (Or you could just refer to it as a hybrid system and be done with it.)
2a)
The issue with mechanical failures of drivers, while not an aspect of dipole speakers themselves, is related to the technology. A dipole speaker essentially has a 6 dB/octave roll-off in bass response below a certain frequency (which depends on the baffle size - but which isn't all that low). This means that, in order to make low bass at a given level, a dipole has to move a lot more air than a sealed or ported speaker.
So, if you use the same driver for both, a given driver will have to move a LOT further if you use it in a dipole than it will if used in a sealed or ported cabinet. This isn't a major problem if you design special drivers - or if you use many conventional drivers. However, for drivers that are designed to be used in a sealed or ported cabinet, it can lead to a much increased likelihood of failure.
(Flat panel drivers like those used in Magneplanars self-limit their motion... but those most certainly are specially designed custom drivers.)
2b) There is another, and much more serious, aspect of the situation... specifically relating to using normal cone type drivers...
In a sealed speaker, the air in the cabinet serves to control cone movement at low frequencies, which protects the speaker from damage by very low frequencies (like record warp). In a ported cabinet, the port tuning serves the same purpose to a degree, (and ported speakers are much more easily damaged from excessively amounts of low frequencies).
But, in a dipole speaker, not only is there essentially nothing mechanically "controlling the driver from flopping around", but you've added a 6 dB PER OCTAVE low frequency EQ boost to the audio signal. Because of this, many dipole designs are much more susceptible to being overdriven catastrophically at very low frequencies...
As a result, the already complex crossover, with its carefully calculated low frequency EQ boost, must also include a very sharp low frequency cut/limit at some lower frequency.
(This, in turn, makes the electronics part of the design more complex, and potentially offers more places for things to go wrong.)
Magneplanar has largely avoided these issues by designing a special custom driver... and they were still unable to overcome the inherent bass limitations. (Not a big deal... as long as you don't mind using them with a sub.)
And Linkwitz has taken the other route, by using several large powerful woofers, which collectively are capable of moving a large amount of air. (The big Linkwitz speakers also require some very complex electronics in order to function...) As I said, while all of these limitations can be overcome or mitigated, they do count as flaws or limitations in the technology.
And, as with many things, whether the benefits are sufficient to justify the effort to overcome the limitations is and will remain a matter of personal choice. I will add something here ... on the matter of personal preference... You're not alone... and many people really love Magneplanars...
However, I've heard many different models over the years, in a variety of rooms, and let's just say that I fail to share your enthusiasm for them. I don't disagree that, as many people say, when they're properly set up, "the speaker just disappears" and "the sound seems like it's just floating in the air". However, personally, I much prefer the solid precise imaging delivered by a good sealed monitor. I'm not picking on Magneplanars here... I've never heard any dipole speaker that could satisfy me in that regard. (Your "magical" is my "too airy and insubstantial".... and my "precise and solid" probably sounds "heavy and dark" to you. ) From an "absolutely pure engineering technology perspective"..... The issue is this... At relatively high frequencies, sound acts more or less like a wavefront, and moving a surface back and forth is a reasonably good way to generate a wave front... When the surface moves forward, it generates a pressure wavefront, which moves forward through the air.
(So panel speakers are a reasonably efficient solution from an engineering perspective.)
However, at low frequencies, sound acts more like a change in the air pressure of the room, and waving a flat surface back and forth is a really poor way to change the air pressure in a room.
And even a tuned port enclosure, which includes a tuned resonant cavity in the process, is a pretty efficient way of pushing air into and out of the room, thus changing the air pressure ion the room. (But a flat panel simply moves the air around - but doesn't actually do very well at causing the air pressure to go up or down in a particular spot.)
And, yes, this suggests that, if you cut a hole in the wall, and installed the panel in it, you would have the best of both worlds. (Of course, it also sounds like the description of a big flat driver, in a big sealed box.) I could also be really annoying and suggest that, while it's possible to design a relatively flat box speaker, in and of itself... No flat panel or dipole speaker can ever have good low bass response without the addition of electronic equalization for correct for the inherent low-frequency rolloff. (So it requires help from a second technology in order to do its job properly.)
Well, technically, you could build a dipole that was flat to 30 Hz... but it would have to be really really big.... You completely missed my point. I copied a post from Boom in which he cited mechanical failures of drivers of a particular model of speaker. That is an executional issue...completely separate from the general concerns related to flat panel/dipole speakers. And regarding bass response - the combination of flat panel or dipole with appropriate bass drivers can work out quite well. Exhibit A...my Maggies with a Rythmik sub. Many other examples exist, and it's a great solution and it sounds magical. Mark
|
|
KeithL
Administrator
Posts: 9,902
|
Post by KeithL on Feb 13, 2020 11:11:48 GMT -5
I don't disagree with you at all there...
However, in the current market, there are very few really well done dipole speakers... and the Magneplanars are one of the few that have gained much market share.
And, if you look at some dipole models, like the big Linkwitz speakers, they are massively large, and require a huge pile of electronics to run. (And, yes, there are more than a few really over-the-top box speakers too.)
And, as I mentioned in another post, to me personally, all dipoles sound "just a bit too airy and open and not quite solid enough". That's not to say that a lot of box speakers don't sound bad as well... but there are a lot more of those to choose from.
And I do maintain that it's fair to say that it's easier to design a decent box speaker... which is why there are so many of them.
Unfortunately, as I and many others see it, the "short stick" here is in terms of size and cost. If you specify that your speaker must be able to deliver reasonable amounts of low bass... A dipole design is always going to be much larger, much less efficient, and much more expensive than a sealed box model. However, as you point out, unless we were present when the recording was made, we have no idea what it really sounded like in the studio. And, with a multi-track recording, it's actually possible that the recording was assembled from tracks recorded at different locations and times, and no single original performance exists at all.
So it does come back largely to personal preference.
Hmm. Reading your above comment suggest that all dipoles will inherently be more expensive than a sealed box speaker in order to obtain efficiency and deep bass. I totally disagree with this notion based upon my own experiences with some dipoles as well as box speakers. There are many box style speakers on the market that reproduce nowhere near what my Genesis 6.1's are able to do (16 hz) at 91 db efficiency. While not an inexpensive speaker in the days they were current there are tons of other brands that cost on an order magnitude more and had less efficiency and did not play as low. The InnerSound ESL's had 98 db efficiency and with the implementation of the transmission line 10" woofer played right down to 20 hz. Now granted both of these speakers are a bit larger than the Emotiva T2+ but not by as much as you might think. Lets now forget about companies such as Wilson who produce $100K speakers or more at the bat of an eye and still don't make down to 20 hz and are no more efficient than my Genesis. The point is there are many ways to skin a cat, or rather build a speaker that is both dipole, efficient and not hideously expensive. Effectively a summation of cost, efficiency and size comparing these two types of speakers becomes much more complex and diverse than your implications above would suggest. Not trying to pick a fight on this one and normally agree with most of your comments, not so much on this one however, but do respect your preference for a sealed/ported box speaker.
|
|
|
Post by routlaw on Feb 13, 2020 12:07:14 GMT -5
@ KeithL you make an interesting comment regarding solid presentation of box speakers. On more than one occasion visitors in my room have made just exactly that comment in reference to the Genesis 6.1's while at the same time holding their hands and arms in the air with gestures implying "solid". Granted they are a unique design and they are a hybrid as well but they do open and airy and as well as "solid" simultaneously. Perhaps not everyones cup of tea but without fail anyone in that room after hearing them goes, Wow! Never heard anything like this ever, or something very similar.
I guess there will always be some exceptions to every rule more or less.
This does beg the question, are musical live performances then "solid" or "open and airy"? Both?
|
|