Looking For a Digital Coaxial and have ££ ?

If you wanted to redisign your living room and sound proof it as a properly designed acoustic then you could control the enviroment, wether wide or narrow baffled a speaker will have pro's and con's in each enviroment.

I have been in sound control rooms and radio booths, and have to say I would find that sort of sound control too oppressive to live with in a domestic enviroment. Plenty of small speakers perform well in the nearfield in these enviroments, as do many 'domestic' floorstanding designs. The dispertion charactersitics of many speakers are designed into them hence the choice of drivers, its the driver, not the cabinet which is meant to vibrate, forward output is usually directed or aided by a horn, flare or diffuser, not many have advertised the flat baffle itself as a usefull accurate device to reflect treble and mid output? Pretty sure part of the developement which led to decoupled drivers and narrow mid treble enclosures was due to distortions and artefacts caused by wide baffles, were these designers wrong?

Panel resonance will come from any panel, not many cabinets are completely inert, many speakers with dome treble and mids will reflect sound from those drivers with a wide baffle, surely not all designs impement this into the design therefor many wide baffles will have a detrimental affect on speaker performance in most common size home enviroments, as many a magazine found during the early 90's.

I cannot remember many reviews of wide baffle speakers such as JBL and such where the wide baffle was not blamed for some inconsistency or should I say detrimental artefact? Maybe it is due to use in the domestic enviroment?

The argument seems to be accuracy of the source signal, but all speakers wide or narrow add or detract in some way, they are not all designed to be controlled and Eq'ed in domestic enviroments, and both studio and HiFi monitors seem to aim at different sollutions and end use, I see it difficult to advocate the superiority of something when it seems to have its own problems.

As you mention we also have port resonance and all other sorts of variables to contend with, I do not think all HiFi speakers are completely rubbish, and have read that the direct radiated sound is important, the amount of panel resonance from side panels will not have as much impact as resonance with forward directivity shall it?
Considering the output and amount of resonance we are talking about is not the equivalent of a dipole or such in output behavour, it will be of much less detrimental behavour if it comes from the sides and has to travel about and get diffused, reaching the listener with less energy and after the initial responce from the cone, therefor not imparting as much damage to the signal as a large panel vibrating with the treble unit facing forward?
Some of the reasons companies like Naim decided to decouple drivers from wide baffles on speakers such as the DBL, and others blanketed baffles around the mid and treble with heavy felt or cork was to control reflected sound.

Is soffit mounting with the baffle flush in a studio not designed to maximise forward output, and even then many studio monitors in such enviroments will be of varying quality with some better than others in this respect? For the production of music at high levels?

Are all speakers designed to have output reinforced by baffles at certain frequencies? And how can this be controled? The baffle compensates for speaker defficiency or lack of size?

Would a 4" mid driver in a 10" wide baffle couple better and give as accurate a signal as an 8" mid driver in a 10" baffle?

This whole narrow is bad seems to have as much weight behind it as wide is bad, when both are completely dependent on design and enviroment and in some cases active and digital EQ.

I cannot help but think differences in baffle and driver size are also confusing matters here, if you have a 20" wide baffle with a 15" driver its the driver that is coupling to the room most so to speak, but a 10" driver on such a baffle? I always thought the idea was to have the driver as accurate as possible, with little or no cabinet coloration or little or no forward output fom the cabinet in the mid treble region, as these muddy up the sound and detail, not to mention 'imaging and soundstage', which we are now being told is a false artefact caused by poor speaker design, surely there are as many bad wide baffle designs as narrow, and many narrow designs which are quite happy projecting midrange performance forward without having to rely on reflected sound from a baffle?

Many of the wide baffle speakers available on eBay are only wide in baffle size due to driver size and domestic constraint, not because of sound quality due to wide baffles? To me a speaker such as the TAD 2404? does not have a wide baffle, as the horn practicaly takes up the whole width.
The Kef KM1 studio monitor didnt have a wide excessive baffle, it was full of drivers.
The PMC BB5 and partnering sub are in two seperate cabs which can be soffit mounted, and from what I remember being discussed the mid output is modified by electronic EQ for the listening position and sits on its own sub baffle.
JBL 4312's have the mid and treble drivers aranged in such a way that there is little bare baffle surounding them.
JBL 4345 does not look like it was designed to implement its baffle to aid midrange forward output, more of a case of driver size and configuration for studio use dictating where drivers can be placed?

I do not understand how reflected sound from the baffle is the same as direct sound radiated from the driver, any panel resonance or reflected sound will alter the driver output response and such.

What speakers are we discussing which implement wide baffles with practical inclusion in the design of such artefacts, and how many wide baffle speakers are no more than wide baffle due to the nature of the design?
I am sure many 'narrow' are fashionable, but some are designed to meet specific requirements of the direction the designer feels important.

Its worth remembering that many magazines advocate using lamps, bookcases, ceiling light shades etc etc to help break up sound in the domestic living enviroment, and advocate positioning of the speaker for the best direct radiated sound, speakers which were designed for free space use in a domestic enviroment, not to be used against or in a wall.

If you have a large speaker in too small a room you will still run into problems direct sound or not, and many large panel speakers are just as bad as narrow panel speakers due to radiated sound from large panels on the rear etc, many of these large speakers have side panels of large proportions so will still cause the same panel resonance and room interaction problems anyway. So controling room nodes and controlling a domestic enviroment is just as important with a large baffle speaker with large resonant panels as it is for a laqrge speaker with only large side panels and slightly wider dispertion characteristics, dispertion which many speakers wide and narrow vary with depending on the designers intent.

I like pictures.

 

I think as has been touched on, the deigner has no idea what your room layout and size is, nor has the speaker been designed for your actual room.

I have tried a few items, the said rings, large felt strips and dense foam strips, in experements with side and ceiling reflections in some different room and speaker configuration settings, it can be fun and beneficial, it only should affect the side and top/bottom dispertion making direct sound a little cleaner?

 

I find them dull too. A bad review! That would be considered un-English not 'supporting the industry' and guarantee no more freebies ( or further review products from that manufacturer ) for the reviewer. The current system ensures jam for everyone, except the punter ofcourse.

 

Is that the yardstick Paul? Reviews? Many valve amps get good reviews yet you dismiss people who like them as believers in 'magic'. Or is it just reviews whose conclusions happen to fit your world view that are valid?

 

Dull as in 'unexciting' or dull as in 'doesn't spray treble all over the room'?

Well that's an accusation and a half. Are you really suggesting that every reviewer who's gone into print on Quad electrostatics is corrupt?

Paul

 

Well, where are the 'Quad midrange is wrong' people?

FWIW I like valve amps and other retro technology. I just don't believe there's any magic to them. However I don't like components that are deliberately designed to be wrong, this is because I appreciate good engineering.

Paul

 

'delibrately designed to be wrong' you heard the Krell room at heathrow as well.

 

If they were so right Paul, everyone would be buying them. A pair of working ESL63's isn't that expensive. Yet few people do. Some, but very few. What percentage of ZG members or PFM members use them?

There are many mediocre products that get favourable reviews. Some are good, some aren't. The reviews are fairly meaningless. Pay less attention to them. You happen to like the Quads. I think they are profoundly unrealistic. You like Isobariks too I gather. I have the same feeling about those! Hopeless speakers imho.

We'll have to agree to disagree but don't try to suggest that the majority of people have the utmost regard for the Quad midrange. If that really were the case more people would use them. They don't. If & when that changes I'll take your opinion more seriously.

Quad users aren't even in a majority amongst the reviewers you have so much respect for!

 

Yet none of that actually supports your assertion that the Quad midrange is 'wrong'.

If most people don't use SP10s, and they are cheaply available, does that support my (hypothetical) view that they are crap turntables?

I ran Isobariks for a couple of years. They are at least a very good £500 speaker if they are working well. Most nowadays seem not to. Anyway not really a good object for any consensus. I reckon Coops would like them, although he would never let himself admit it, a bit of boom and tizz with no harshness....

Paul

 

Well we can safely say it will be spraying everything below 2khz all over the place without the help of a baffle to restrain it. Seeing as it will typically be used from 400hz to 3.5khz or so, not only will it interact heavily with the room, but it will also exhibit a wildly varying polar response meaning the reflections will be uneven in tone. Careful design can produce a better power response but cannot stop the interaction with the room. As I mentioned, subjectively many might prefer this, but they are listening to the room as much as the recording. I always say it's the difference between "they are here" and "you are there".

A horn's dispersion narrows with increasing frequency - check out the polar plots for a tractrix like Keith's. You can avoid this presenting a problem by limiting the horn's bandwidth or of course, using a wide dispersion horn and accepting a bit of horizontal loabing ( as I do).

The ET-703 tweeter I use comes in at 8khz. It has very smooth on and off axis behavior and rolls off rapidly even 15 degrees off axis. The Horn I use, the TH4003 is agressively directional with just 30 degrees of vertical dispersion -greatly reducing the impact of floor and ceiling reflections. At the 8khz crossover point, the polar responses of both drive units are remarkably similar.

You seem to be confusing constant directivity with controlled directivity and it is the latter that I am talking about. I am keeping the off axis energy low and because of that, it interacts less with the room.

If I listen seriously I want the best sound I can get. If I slouch on a sofa reading a book, I really don't mind if the treble is a little rolled off.

 

Sast,

thanks for the post.

I'm absolutely with you that we should aim for bigger drive units first but if we must compromise with smaller ones, I prefer them to be on a larger baffle. Small baffle + small drive unit = small percentage of sound actually reaching you directly and untarnished.

I don't understand this thing about baffles vibrating. Any loudpeaker worth it's salt will prevent destructive panel resonances on the baffle - often by either increasing the thickness of the panel or by extensive bracing. Either way it should be a non issue unless you are Naim - in which case, have you heard how good at imaging the SL2 is?

What about open baffle designs? Wide and sizeable by neccessity. Listen to say a 15" Hemp Acoustics DC driver in a large baffle and tell me it doesn't image or it's hampered by the baffle.

I can only try to explain why, to my ears, narrow baffled loudspeakers generally sound weak and wrong. I can only apply the lessons I've learned to this and question this old "wisdom" from the eighties that promoted the different designs to their current dominant position. There is no right and wrong way to build a loudspeaker from a subjective POV (although there are more and less faithful ways IMHO). They all miss their target by a country mile so we take our favoured group of compromises and get on with it.

 

The difference is Paul that I don't suggest that the majority of people hold the view that an SP10 is a fine TT. I'd readily accept it was the viewpoint of a tiny minority. I don't really care anyway.

You however suggested that some majority thought the Quads have a midrange performance that was beyond criticism. I'm intrigued to know which majority that might be. The majority of Quad ESL owners perhaps?

 

And as Heathrow clearly demonstrated, it's high-time the UK hifi industry learned the same lesson: Even in UK sized living rooms, large speakers often work better acoustically and are no more intrusive physically (due to close wall placement) than smaller ones!

 

I'm suggesting that your view that the Quad midrange sounds wrong is eccentric and unusual. Which appears to be the case given the non-appearance of hordes of supporters other than dull coops.

Paul

 

Dull! Perhaps, it is difficult to imagine something better until you hear it, perhaps Paul has led a very sheltered audio life.

 

Paul has the Isobariks as a reference for midrange performance. Small wonder that the Quads sound miraculous to him!

He still hasn't provided any evidence whatsoever for his assertion that some majority somewhere feels their midrange is correct though. I won't be holding my breath!

 

This is the problem, because I think one of the interesting things about horns is that once they start to work the dispersion remains constant with increasing frequency, until the wavelength is getting near the throat dimensions anyway.

Do you have a link?

Paul

 

Well, no I don't. Stop making stuff up.

Every published opinion I can find or I've ever seen agrees that the Quad midrange is right, whatever other compromises or criticisms. You have coops. Never mind.

Paul

 

A I said, hard to imagine something better until you hear it!

 

In India, some people regard cows as sacred.

I've been a couple of times.
They just look like normal cows to me