Speaker Technology over the last 10 years

Therefore, categorically dismissing a given design approach may cause you to miss out on some really good products.

Exactly. Panels are not the only way to make a great speaker.

if i could not tell i was listening to a cone design in a cabinet, i would seriously considder it. i know of no design which satiisfies the aforementioned requirement.

i have heard many, many cone designs.

MrTennis, have you heard Tannoy Monitor Gold drivers ? If yes compare to ESL57?

if i could not tell i was listening to a cone design in a cabinet, i would seriously considder it.

You are undoubtedly hearing the markedly different radiation pattern from large panels. There is a dipole effect for those that radiate backwards and there is plenty of lobing on the primary signal going forward. This results in a markedly different sound at the listening position. Since these effects are variable with frequency and hard to predict (room/listening dependent) they make panels unsuitable for monitoring (where accuracy at the listening position is needed). The increased ambience and comb filtering effects can create an impressive spacious sound and, in the right room/setup, can give a more natural ambience or a large space/hall - which will probably help most with classical genres.

I'd hazard a guess that the ambient sound field is what you enjoy so much about this type design. Panels are a good design for creating some excellent effects that add realism and can increase the enjoyment for many listeners.

I'm sure that Shadorne is correct re: radiation pattern.

Mrtennis' preference likely has little to do with distortion which varies dramatically with SPL - as noted above - for both boxes and panels. Similarly, tonal balance varies as markedly for different model panels as it does between any given panel and any given box. (The original Quad 'stat has a strikingly different tonal balance from the large Sound Lab 'stats.)

It's likely that the radiation pattern delta is also distinctive because it excites room nodes differently. My forward firing designs tend to produce a few suckouts between 50hz and 150hz, each of which is deep and narrow. My Maggies produce a larger, more complex pattern which features shallower troughs. The omnis produce the flattest response, although the primary suckout is large - much like the forward firing designs. Some of this specific result is due to my particular room (and I address some of this with EQ'd subs), but there's little doubt in my mind that the speaker/room system behaves differently when the radiation pattern is altered.

I rotate boxes and panels in my system roughly on a monthly basis, though my subs stay put with both. Each design has its particular charms and Mrtennis evidently values those of panel designs (and cardioid radiation) most highly. I would recommend that Mrtennis audition an omni design like Ohm, MBL, or Duevel (if he hasn't already) to see how those strike his fancy. They present a third radiation pattern that brings a different set of cards to the table.

Marty

Marty