never will any cone design be the best. electrostats are less inaccurate in reproducing timbre.
there is a way to demonstrate this, but unfortunately people live to far away to do a simple test.
the quads unlimited quad 57 are closer to real than anything out there, period. |
hi shadorne:
there is no mystery. no component is perfect. since imperfection is all that is available, there is a variety of imperfect products, preferred by a variety of hobbyists.
when taste is the motivator of behavior, many products will flourish. this is true in other industries as well.
a successful enterprise will differentiate its product from that of its competitors, thereby helping to insure its viability. manufacturer's do that as well as trying to convince buyers of the superiority of their products. if enough buyers are convinced, such businesses are successful.
end of economics 1 lecture. |
hi audiophile1958:
you can have a negative attitude toward a product initially, even if you haven't heard theproduct, if it is a member of a class of products to which you have been exposed and the result has been a dislike for such products.
for example, while i have heard many cone speakers, i am skeptical that i would like a cone speaker that i have not heard, based upon my vast experience with cone speakers.
it is highly unlikely that i will ever own a cone design. yet i have not auditioned every cone design.
when i hear of a cone speaker that is highly regarded, i am inclined to think i will not like it. of course, i would need to audition the speaker, to confirm my predisposition. however, i would indeed make a wager that i would not want to own a cone speaker, based upon a fair evaluation of that speaker. |
considering the entry date for this speaker. so far, no design has reduced errors of timbre in the midrange to a greater extent than the quad esl. i doubt any design in the future will surpass the quad in this respect.
i have to give serious consideration to the purchase of stacked quad esls as my next and hopefully last speaker system. there is only one other contender, namely the analysis audio omega.
enjoy your cones. perhaps you can put some ice cream and syrup on them. they'll taste better that way.... lol! |
the quad 989 is inferior in purity to the original quads.
the 2805 is no better. the 57 was and is the best midrange and lower treble reproducer. the soundlabs are a distant second. |
ask david chesky the same question about sound labs vs quads. this is the first time i have ever heard anyone suggest that any sound lab speaker was closer to the real think than the original quad esl.
i suppose it is a matter of perception. there is no absolute answer to this question without a reference
to compare to the recording. |
hi mr g:
if i heard a cone design that had all of the admirable characteristsics of a planar/dipole, i would consider it for purchase.
unfortunately, every cone design i have heard has exhibited "colorations" which i do not like.
there is a very good chance i will purchase two pair of quads unlimited quad 57s, realizing limitations in dynamics and bass. |
the quad 57 has the least inaccurate midrange, period. i am surprised you have not revealed it. it is not attenuated in the treble, but it is dynamically restricted nad attenuated in the bass. greater transparency does not guarantee less timbral inaccuracy. where the quad excels is in accuracy of timbre. there is no speaker which surpasses it in that respect.
obviously any statements without definitive proof are opinions. i will admit that. i am curious as to what speaker system you own.
by the way, i visited you at the sahara hotel at a ces during the 90's. you remarked that you like a lean sound.
i have a witness who will confirm your comment.
too much transparency and accuracy of timbre are not synonymous. |
i consider the quads unlimited reproduction of the original quad esl to be the least inaccurate with respect to timbre. my concern is the bass response as well as the susceptibility of the panel to degradation due to temparature and humidity. i am also not looking forward to having a speaker dependent upon the quality of the ac.
the alternatives to my ears are few, so it may be a comprimise among the imperfect speakers. if you have any ideas as to a speaker system which is minimally erroneous when recreating the sound of an instrument, please let me know.
thanks |
hi timemachine:
i have heard mbl speakers many times at ces shows.
they are fine speakers. however, they are nopt what i would call pure sounding. they do not sound like electrostatic speakers, magnepans, apogees, eminent technology speakers and other planar magnetics.
the mbl speakers were driven by mbl amps and featured mbl cd players, as well. i was not overly impressed. it is a speaker that is not on my short list.
perhaps you have another idea.
as for the big soundlabs, i prefer the earlier soundslabs, the a2 and b2. in addition, the big soundlabs will not fit in my room and would require an amlifier i don't own. |
hi shadorne:
it is my experience, auditioning many cone designs that cone designs do not as good a job creating natural timbre as ribbons, electrostats and planar/magnetic drivers.
cone designs have driver colorations, cabinet colorations and crossover colorations with cones.
if cone designs reproduced timbre naturally, i would consider them.
as for radiating patterns. if you listen in the near field, there are still differences in radiating patterns, but they are reduced.
are you suggesting that a ribbon tweeter and a dome tweeter sound similar except for radiating pattern ?
how would you demonstrate that ? |
if you compareh a three way cone design to a pair of martin logan cls 2 z speakers , you will hear many differences. let's say your source is a harpsichord.
the timbre of the harpsichord, in my opinion will sound more realistic played through the martin logan than through some 3 way cone design.
whether it is or is not a matter of dispersion, the drivers are different.
since i am looking to purchase a pair of speakers, reproduction of timbre is my primary criterion.
i consider electrostatic and planar/magnetic speakers more likely to produce a natural recreation of the sound of an instrument than cone designs.
if there is a speaker that is a worthy competitor of electrostatics and planar/magnetics/ribbons, with respect to reproduction of timbre, using "conventional" drivers, i would want to audition it, unless i have already heard it. |
let's be careful of how you interpret the word "new".
if by "new", you mean, production date during the last three months, i must admit, that what i have in mind is somewhat older than that. the only speaker which could be considered "new", would be the electrostatic panel portion of roger sanders hybrid electrostatic speaker. unfortunately, his design includes a bass driver, which causes his product to lose coherency. it sounds like two speakers. if he had introduced a fulll range, flat panel electrostatic, i'm confident it would be a serious contender for purchase.
the speakers i am considering are analysis audio omega and quads unlimited stacked quad 57s.
one more point regarding cone designs.
i have auditioned over 1000 of them, at shows and at the homes of friends and acquaintances. i assert that i can observe colorations which are intrinsic to these designs.
i find that at times i may be attracted to some of them, initially. however, it is my opinion that over time, these colorations will lead to an unsatisfactory listening experience. while panel speakers have different colorations, i find that ultimately, panels come closer to my experience of listening to live unamplified instruments. |
hi techmachine:
it may be a great speaker. i visited the web site, read a review and briefly studied some of the technical details.
the speaker might be too revealing. until i hear it (i can't lift it at 295 pds), it represents an if.
for $7200, i can purchase stacked quads unlimited quads.
i would love to compare the two speakers, each having a different driver type to determine the merits of the polymer.
i doubt it would be possible to do that. where did you hear them and who carries them ? |
hi ralph:
there is no best anything. however, at a point in time, one can say that given say 5 speakers, one of them is least inaccurate timbrally. that doesn't make it the best, but does establish performance in that regard.
timbre is one of several components of music. it is most important to me.
regarding "revealing" speakers, if a spekaer reveals both musical and non musical information in a manner whcih is not realistic, then it is too revealing.
i will provide an example in the visual realm. i was watching a commercial in which a part of brick building appeared on my lcd screen. i observed that the level of resolution exceeded what i would experience if i were viewing the building from a distance of 20 feet.
sometimes one listens to a stereo sytem which cone might say is overly articulated. when in attendance at a concert, i would never use the word "detail" as part of my description of the music i heard. if the same term is used when describing the music heard through a pair of speakers, it is possible that one is listening to music "under a microscope".
back to the topic. martin logan will be introducing its clx, a full range electrostatic speaker at the denver cedia show, later in the ear. priced between $8000 and $9000, it has the potential for being a fine product. i received information today from a representative of the company. it is too bad it is not in production yet, as i would order a pair with out an audition. |
yes i will assert that any electrostatic, within its frequency response bandwidth, will create the sound of an instrument, in a manner more realistic than any cone design.
we both realize that such an assertion requires evidence.
as i have stated in the past, an experiment would be needed to compare a live performance to a recording feeding a pair of speakers, or one could use a microphone feed without making a recording.
since this experiement has not occurred you and i are engaging in probabilistic statements.
such a test is not definitive, because it is possible that two listeners may differ in the outcome of such a comparison. do you have any ideas ? |
gentlemen:
let me try to clarify my positions.
there is no best anything. there is no best for me, either.
there is perception and preference. i make no assertion about quality or relative difference, except to say that i perceive the sound of an instrument when listening to it on a recording played through certain panel speakers as coming closer to the real thing. such an assertion does not imply that such panel speakers are better than cone designed speakers. it is important not to interpret my statements. just take them literally. as far as amplifiers and martin logan speakers it is presumptuous for you to say i can not adequately drive the martin logan speaker with a tube amp.
if i remember the laws of physics, if a speaker is rated say, 86 db, 1 watt, 1 meter, i should be able to drive it listening at a sound pressure of 80 db with a modestly powered tube amp provided my room is not to large and provided the amp can deal with a 2 ohm load at frequencies exceeding 10khz. i would not want to drive a martin logan with a ss amp or class d amp. i am confident that i can survive at lower listening levels with a 50 watt tube amp.
i have used a 4 watt tube amp on my 1.6s as well as a 30 watt amp, achieving spl of 85 db with the latter.
there are no standards and no criteria. a performance is at a point in time. there is no yardstick.
one listens and hears at a point in time, based upon a bunch of variables. i will not generalize , but rather report factually, my experiences. nothing less, nothing more. do not take them out of context. any criteria are personal and not universal.
it seems intuitive that drivers composed of different materials will sound different, e.g., silk vs titanium dome tweeters. i find it hard to believe that dispersion is the only variable accounting for differences in a speaker composed of cones as compared to a another speaker which has none of them. can you suggest a way of demonstrating this ? obviously when listening to two types of speakers there are at least two variables, namely, dispersion and drivers materials. there are others as well. for you to focus on one of them without adquate proof is entirely hypothetical. |
hi shadorne:
i have never noticed a note jumping out at me. perhaps, it is because my favorite location is the last row orchestra.
cone speakers, with some exception tend to sound like i am listening in the first row, or at best mid hall. |
hi ralph:
you are confusing facts, perceptions and value judgments.
if i say speaker a is less inaccurate than speaker b, the statement is a reflection of a perception. in order to say that speaker a is better than speaker b, there must be a criterion or postulate that says accuracy is better than inaccuracy. i never established such a postulate and i would never say less coloration is better than more coloration.
you continue to misinterpret what i say, perhaps, because you believe that accuracy is better than inaccuracy. such a statement is a value judgment. value judgments apply to better and best, best upon criteria or held beliefs about sound quality.
i believe that sound quality is personal and based upon preference. thus there is no better or best because what i prefer is neither good nor bad, it is just what i like. i do not attach any value to what i like. it is purely an opinion.
i have not an am notb contradicted myself. i have a fine command of the english language. years of college and graduate school and writing have refined my ability to communicate.
if you have any more questions, why don't we discuss this on the phone, or next time we meet at an audio show.
one more thing, i believe a martin logan speaker can be driven with a tube amp. i personally have heard a sequel driven by an early quicksilver amp which used 8417 tubes.
i do not believe that martin logan speakers necessaily dip to .5 ohms. can this be verified ? |
hi ralph:
is perception reality ?
there is no contradiction in saying i perceive a to be less inaccurate than b. note, i perceive is the key. i can't say what is real and what is not.
what is a measurable increase in performance ? as soon as you say "increase in performance", you are making a value judgment. i report perceptions. what does a perception have to do with performance. that word is value laden.
why not accept a statement that a is less inaccurate than b in its literal sense. even if there were a measurable change in frequency response, such a state would neither be bad or good.
the issue between us is whether i consider a reduction in inaccuracy an increase in performance. i do not. it is a change that is based either upon perception or measurement.
such a change is not better or worse. it is a change.
there is no contradiction between preference and perception. my preferences are based upon my perceptions.
i guess the word performance has one connotation for you, another for you. even if i accept your connotation of an "a performance increase", such an increase is not better than no increase. it depends upon what you prefer. |
i have not contradicted myself.
regarding speakers. i said that never will a cone speaker be the best. as well , never will any speaker be the best.
i have reported my perceptions and preferences. i don't recall saying the quad 57 was the best or is the best speaker, because there is no best speaker.
if it can be measured that speaker a is closer to 100 percent accurate than speaker b it doesn't mean that speaker a is better than speaker b.
noew, let's talk amplifiers. there is no best amplifier.
my preferences have nothing to do with "best". best is only meaningful in the context of a criterion. if there are two different criteria then there are two different "best" , whatever is being judged.
i think there is no doubt now, that better and best are somewhat arbitrary and not useful terms, as far as i am concerned.
its all about taste and preference.
there is no inconsistency and no contradiction. there may have been misunderstanding and misinterpretation.
now all is clear. i like what i like, and you like what you like. stereo systems and components are different. they sound different, some of their parts are different and some design principles are different.
listen and decide what you like. one man's trash is another man's treasure.
the only standrads and norms are thos suggested and imposed and based upon those standards one may conclude that something is better than something else.
since i do not accept such standards as a means of determining quality, i am not bound by them and hence i do not accept the the hypothesis that a is better than b, in life. rather i would say it is in my interest to own a or it is in my interest to do a. i won't admit that my choices are based upon my own conecpts of quality because i don't have any.
i can apply this philosophy to all areas of life. |
hi ralph:
thank you for all of the intellectual jousting. you are contributing to the health of a 66 year old brain. |
the placement of microphones is different from the location of audience members. it is gnereally above the stage and sometimes over rows 1 to 5.
placing the microphones in that position gives an orchestra a sound which does not represnt where i prefer to sit.
since when is a seat in rows one to five, the best seat in the house. there is no best seat in the house, just as there is no best amp, preamp, speaker, cable, wife, car, book, movie, candidate running for office, etc. .
i wish they would remove the word "best" from the english language, as it engeneders arguments.
you are entitled to your opinions on a variety of subjects.
an opinion is probably true and probably false.
as to your implication tha an accurate stereo system is "better" than an inaccurate one, that too is your opinion.
your reference to a stereo system which changes the perspective of a recording as being wrong, is also an opinion. obviously you and i don't agree on alot of things.
i hope one day we can meet at a ces show and continue to discuss our differences. as i said before, it keep me mentally sharp to joust with you.
hopefully, they print this post, otherwise you will think i am avoiding you. |
once more: there is no best of anything. my perception of naturalness of timbre leads me to prefer the quad 57 in comparison to most speakers. my preference does not mean that i think the quad 57 is the best speaker, or the best at reproducing timbre. i haven't auditioned evry speaker, thus it is not possible to use the term "best".
the word best does not enter my vocabulary. it is a word i try not to use.
i have perception and preferences. that is the extent of my comments. one cannot conclude "best" based upon perception and preference. favorite might be a better word.
hopefully, i am now understood. |
thank you drew. i should have been more specific.
what i meant to say is that i might be interested in auditioning a non-panel speaker that would fool me into thinking that i was listening to a panel.
i'm not sure that the speakers you mentioned could completely emulate a pair of stacked quad 57 or apogee suettta signature.
i heard the emerald physics speaker at the show. i was not impressed |
hi ralph:
aha, now i see your point. you have defined a criterion as to what best is, and you are applying that criterion to the evaluation of components and stereo systems.
i understand your perspective, but it is an arbitrary one. you use the word "best" and "worst", as it follows from your premise of accuracy, and "the rules of hearing".
your premise is arbitrary, although sensible.
i still say that there is no "best" or worst", in the absolute sense. i will accept your conclusions based upon your premise, but at the same time, i reject it because, i consider this hobby to be subjective and the basis for judging stereo systems to be a simple, "i like it" or "i don't like it". "best" or "worst", which follows logically from your premise is irrelevant. don't confuse facts with value. you are making a virtue of necessity.
by the way, i sent you an e mail. did you receive it ?
i see no point in debating with you. this is a philosophical argument. one could have a similar discussion with respect to food, literature, art and movies.
as i said in the e mail, it would be easier to discuss this in person with you. perhaps we may meet at ces. |
hi duke:
you can discuss accurate vs inaccurate replication of recordings. one can measure and state facts.
the problem occurs when a judgment is rendered.
here is an example:
stereo system a is accurate--fact
stereo system b is inaccurate--fact
so far, there would be no disagreement if the facts were established properly.
to say stereo system a is better than stereo system b is illogical and only an opinion. |
there is another new panel speaker which has not been mentioned so far, namely the podium, from england.
i will be visiting the importer in brooklyn, ny, to audition the speaker, on tuesday. i will report my experience. this speaker was exhibited at the show in 2008. |
