legend

Members
  • Content count

    294
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About legend

  • Rank
    Member

Uncategorized

  • Location
    NOWRA
  • Country
    OZ
  • First Name
    Dr Rod
  1. Panels vs Dynamic (cone) Speakers

    These are the measurements from Kantus - a 3-way speaker with dedicated 3"mid but no tweeter lens: at 0 and 90 degrees: at 30 and 60 degrees: Even without a tweeter lens the plots generally change more evenly with frequency and orientation mainly because the dedicated 3" tweeter beams less at the Xover to the tweeter (which is also higher at 3.3 kHz rather than 2.5 kHz as in the 2-way Kurres). (The image below is a mistake but I don't seem to be able to delete it!!)
  2. Panels vs Dynamic (cone) Speakers

    Also apologies more generally for not making much input previously to this thread - I have been in Yorkshire visiting in-laws for the past few weeks and am still readapting to Oz (both physically & business-wise)! My article that started this thread was written over 10 years ago and much water has passed under the bridge since then in my understanding etc. Written now I would probably placed less emphasis on the Haas effect and more on Toole & Olives work on the effects of reflections more generally in rooms. However I do think that panel users go to some trouble to utilise the Haas effect by having to place them well away from the back walls so those waves beamed backwards reach the ears in a time when they integrated best physoacoustically with the front waves - but are not just confused with them (at shorter overlap times); or perceived as echoes (at longer times). And even though panels might avoid first room reflections off side walls above certain frequencies I think by the 2nd or 3rd reflections even they will pretty much fill the room, just like cone/dome speakers. The only way to totally avoid room reflections is to use headphones! I still do believe what I said about panels keeping vibrating (decaying) long after the signal exciting them has stopped. On theoretical grounds even though the panels might be light – but so are drumheads. And this is shown up experimentally (listening and measurements) as in the recent Stereophile review of Quads http://www.stereo.net.au/forums/topic/125907-new-quads-esl-2912/#comment-1874186 Finally(!) I still think that panels are no faster than domes/cones in attack speed. As pointed out also by others it is acceleration of the diaphram that is important and this depends on force/mass so even though the panels have lowish mass they have smaller forces on them. And I doubt that panels have lower overall mass than many tweeters.
  3. Panels vs Dynamic (cone) Speakers

    Apologies to those who don’t like measurements but I find them useful to understand what I am hearing (on all sorts of music!) when designing a speaker. These are some I have just made on our Kurre 9: Firstly on axis and right angles (90 degrees): Then filling in the gaps at 30 and 60 degrees: I think it can be seen they fall off fairly slowly and monotonically with both angle and frequency. There is perhaps a slight discontinuity where the mid/bass driver’s beaming at increasing frequency does not quite match the wide dispersion of the incoming tweeter above Xover but it is minimised by use of the shallow tweeter lens/wave guide. (And of course the lumpiness at low frequencies is a room measurement effect). The use of a dedicated mid-range also helps dispersion - I will try to do some on the Kantu today.
  4. Panels vs Dynamic (cone) Speakers

    Published yesterday http://www.soundstageaustralia.com/index.php/reviews/17-legend-acoustics-big-red-active-loudspeakers
  5. New Quads ESL-2912

    They just did not float my boat - I like listening to a very wide range/variety of music! More detailed reasons at http://www.legendspeakers.com.au/Backup-old-site/Loudspeakers.PDF
  6. New Quads ESL-2912

    I don't think so. When I worked at Linn I was offered a pair reputed to be Peter Walker's personal ones but declined!
  7. New Quads ESL-2912

    To me these 2 quotes from the review pretty much sum up everything about the ESL-2912s. Robert Deutsch’s listening: “One thing I highly value is a speaker’s ability not to sound like a speaker. The “speaker sound” originates in the drivers, each of which exhibits a set of resonances—and, if the drivers are in an enclosure, the box adds its own resonances, resulting in a “boxy” sound. Over the years, speaker designers have worked hard to solve this problem, with considerable success. Monitor’s Platinum PL300 II, which comprises dynamic drivers in a box, has very little speaker sound, but if you listen very closely, you can hear that it has not been entirely eliminated. The ESL-2912 has an obvious inherent advantage over box speakers in having no box at all. However, with some music, mostly orchestral, I was at times aware of a kind of drumming sound that wasn’t part of the music..” John Atkinson’s measurements: “Finally, like that of every other panel speaker I’ve measured, the Quad ESL-2912’s waterfall plot (fig.6) looks hashy, though the initial decay looks relatively clean. But as I explained in our review of MartinLogan’s Masterpiece Renaissance ESL 15A electrostatic speaker in January 2017, I suspect that though the average motion of the diaphragm reacts in a linear manner to the drive signal, the panel actually behaves in a chaotic manner. In effect, the panel “shimmies” as it moves—and that, together with local interference from multiple sources arriving at the microphone, gives rise to the messy looking waterfall plot.” Therefore if you like simple music (acoustic, jazz etc) where the ESLs add extra reverberation/decay (ie warmth/sweetness) then consider buying; if you like complex music (orchestral, heavy rock etc) then don’t!
  8. Sound stage

    In my experience 'depth' of soundstage usually increases with increasing 'euphonic' (low order) distortion - but this often leads to poorer precision of positioning.
  9. Kessler

    You are right - he is a hypocrite. This is a quote from an article by John Atkinson, editor of Stereophile (https://www.stereophile.com/content/how-revive-high-end-audio) "And, as Stereophile correspondent Ken Kessler wrote in an article in the September 2005 issue of UK trade journal Inside Hi-Fi & AV, the high-end audio industry faces obstacles in reaching its existing customer base. Ken's thesis is that, whereas acknowledged luxury markets exist in many fields, from watches to cars to handbags to pens, audio alone seems to be associated with a sense of consumer guilt—that when conspicuous consumption involves expensive loudspeakers or amplifiers, it is to be condemned. Buy a Patek Phillipe or a Porsche Cayenne and your neighbors will be impressed, or at least not regard you as crazy. But spend that same money on an amplifier or a pair of speakers and, as a Stereophile reader recently wrote me when canceling his subscription, "With all the crap going on in the world and you clowns are stressing over the next platinum-coated piece of electronics . . . You all should be ashamed of yourselves.". I used to get the UK trade magazine Inside Hi-Fi & AV and well remember his articles then.
  10. In the 'golden age' of hi-fi (1970-80s) Hobart had 3 hi-fi shops - Quantum, Sandy Bay Hi-Fi and Belcanto but now only Quantum remains. I think many young Tasmanians like me from that era went 'overseas' to the mainland & further to find jobs etc and have been replaced by the 'blowins' to whom you refer. Conversely the TSO in the 1970-80s was pretty ordinary (I had just come back from the UK and it was a major reason I got into hi-fi as a substitute) but as you say it is now a world-class orchestra - and Martin is a world-class cellist (I heard Jaquelin du Pre and Paul Tortelier live while in the UK).
  11. A home-based retailer Martin Penicka (ph/text 0413 621 936) - a great guy and superb cellist (with TSO). The only bricks&mortar retailer remaining in Hobart, Quantum, seems mainly interested in well-known brands such as Bose & B&W.
  12. Yes there is currently concentration on markets/consumers (I also did a few marketing subjects along these lines at AGSM). But we have to be producers (of something) to earn money before we can become consumers.
  13. I think the cost plus model, including the parts cost multiplier one, was commonly used 30 or more years ago, the time originally mentioned by the OP, though their were exceptions using the Rolex model. A corollary was “a fair days pay for a fair days work’ with both capital & labour benefiting (the time when America was actually great). Now the situation seems largely reversed with the Rolex model predominating. I think what happened was the rise of economic rationalism with its corollaries ‘greed is good’ and ‘there is no such thing as society only individuals’. (I did my MBA in one of its citadels, the Australian Graduate School of Management at UNSW in the early 1990s when its Dean, Fred Hilmer was asked by Paul Keating to do his Competition Report). It has led to the decline of the middle market (and to the lower middle class with all the political unrest that it currently entails). Apologies to those who think this is too solemn/serious for SNA!
  14. yes I was grossly oversimplifying - there are good exceptions but outliers don't necessarily make a rule!
  15. I think you are probably right. Today the middle market of well engineered products at reasonable prices (given all cost factors) seems to be disappearing. Products must either mega-cheap or have the Rolex factor (I mentioned the latter in a earlier post). However this is perhaps as much the 'fault' of consumers as of manufacturers?