Just because a speaker system has a sloping baffle does not mean it is time aligned. There are a few manufacturers who would like for you to think there speakers are time aligned. This has been noted in Stereophile's reviews of speakers from time to time. Also, there is the phase issue which can undue the alignment regardless of the physical alignment of the drivers. Take a look at the impulse response of speakers and it gives you a pretty good picture. Sometimes the midrange is wired out of phase to the tweeter or woofer(pick your order)This effects when the sounds arrive. I have said in many posts that accuracy is not that big of an issue it seems. Electrostatic speakers have a terrible frequency response in general. Just look at some test results. But people like them. Don't take my word, look up the test results. They also have issues similiar to what was mentioned in a post above in regards to a 6db filter requiring a broader overlap of frequencies for its drivers except the electrostatic is trying to make a diaphragm work at most frequencies equally well which it won't.
We ALL like our colorations. Pick your poison. It appears that no design has a market edge on another. Each design has its camp. However, I personally believe in time and phase coherent speakers. If you have a speaker that produces overtones that are out of phase and not arriving at the same time as the fundamentals of the sound---they call that distortion---it distorts the original waveform. I still ask the question, who has heard perfection to know what a sound should be on any speaker unless you were in the studio for the original. Even then, most of the recorded music is mixed down and altered until it is some small piece of what it started out to be.
Hell, you've got a bunch of people who like Bose cubes with a sub. Who am I to say there wrong? Man, this argument will go on until the end of time. To phase or not to phase---to time align or not time align.
Richard Hardesty has his views that have developed over many years of listening along with most people who believe in time aligned, phase perfect speakers. Technically, there is a strong argument for this. It takes a lot more to design these speakers. More is put into the drivers for the very reason mentioned above. Compare Vandersteen's frequency response curve (or any other spec for that matter) with any speaker you want and they will hold their ground easily. Any time aligned and phase perfect speaker specs out very, very well.
My bottom line here is specs and design must not be the only issue for us audiophiles chasing our tails! |
I may be wrong but I don't believe that Karl's statement is correct. Highs come at you quicker where lows are much slower. A flat diaphragm is not timed aligned by looking at its impulse response and other factors. The frequencies are reproduced at the same time but do not arrive at your ears at the same time. I am aware of only a handful of time aligned (and/or phase correct) speakers. Going back through a lot of specs, etc., nobody has ever called an electrostatic time aligned that I can find. They are certainly not phased aligned. Look at the electrostatic impulse response and phase graph. The phase angle is all over the place. |
I think we could discuss this subject for a long while and get very technical. I feel that anything that helps preserve the waveform is beneficial. TWL is right about the waveform. You want it all to arrive at the same time. You can go into a chamber and easily prove that a lot of speakers do not deliver the sound as a "On time" acoustical wave. This is what time alignment tries to do. Science has proven a bumble bee can't fly but it does. Acoustics has a lot of issues just like electricity. Vandersteen tries to get his speakers to perform in a manner that preserves this waveform and even though the phase angle does change, it is not going far in a positve or negative direction unlike some speakers. It is just closer to an electrical ideal. Does it make a speaker "sound " better? Well, there's your debate. |
Well, I'm going to take one last technical stab at this. What we are talking about is the time that elapses between the arrival of the electrical signal at the input of the driver and when the acoustical signal leaves the driver. This will vary depending on the size and frequency range of the driver. This is not the time the acoustical waveform travels through the air. If it doesn't leave at the right time, it sure can't get to your ears at the right time. That is why I said that the baffle slope doesn't mean a lot, relatively speaking. We must be phase correct to assure that the amplitude of the fundamentals and harmonics are not altered and time aligned. By adjusting the acoustical centers of the drivers, we can compensate somewhat for the time alignment. It has to be precise.
The crossover network may need to be very complex to accomplish a 6db/octave ACOUSTICAL roll-off because the electrical and mechanical characteristics of the drivers must be considered. Single caps will not do the job. Phase has to be considered in this equation because phase will create acoustical timing errors. Also, we are talking about acoustical phase, not electrical phase. We are looking at wavelengths here. If you know the frequency of a sound pressure wave you can calculate the "Wavelength" of each cycle. We can also add in "transfer function."
This could be a very long discussion but I hope this gets us all on the same page. |
Unsound---they lied! It HAS to be a first order filter period. The phase shift created by a 24 db slope would be tuff to fix. Read Richard Hardesty's issue #3 of the Audioperfectionist. You might not like his recommendations but his science is correct. |
Man, I'd like to see Richard Vandersteen and Joseph Audio get in the ring! It's what makes this "Hobby" so great. My design is better than your design. I believe Vandersteen, Jim Thiel and a few others would debate his points. I've owned a lot of speakers over 40 years of this and maybe my ears are going bad but I never cared for the Joseph Audio sound. Once I was exposed to the time aligned and phase coherent systems, I will not be going back. But I guess there are so many speakers for the same reason there are so many cars---to be different.
By the way, I bought my first pair of Vandersteen's before I saw any specs,graphs or even knew what phase and timing were. They just sounded better to me. Isn't that what is important? I do listen to speakers every so often when I'm in a different city and stop in a store. I still don't like the Joseph Audio sound and I don't care how many "Shows" they win! Nice veneer though. |
Every speaker design is a compromise. The perfect solution is not available and probably never will be. I'm sure that every speaker manufacturer feels "His" design is the best solution.
I prefer the 6db designs and I use Vandersteen 3A Signatures with a pair of matching 2wq subs. This has provided me with the best sound "I" have ever had in my dedicated listening room.
On the test bench, these speakers are about as good as any out there (testing wise using Stereophiles reviews and in Richard Hardesty's reports and comparisons in The Audioperfectionist) Obviously, there is more to speakers than what shows up on a test bench, eg:room acoustics.
I feel Jeff is trying to "Sell" his design. I'm sure his speakers are liked by some(most manufactures are) but I personally did not favor the sound. Is his solution the answer? I don't think so.
I do agree that 6db speaker designs are a little harder to set up and do have a limited "Sweet spot." But to be honest, in 40 years of being in this hobby, I have not heard a speaker that didn't take time to set up and was somewhat limited to a "Sweet spot." Vandersteen's have an area where the sound doesn't change and unless you are moving around listening to music, then, this is really a non issue. I haven't heard a speaker thats sound didn't change when moving around. I usually stay put.
I have owned probably in the neighborhood of 30 pair of different speakers over the expanded course of my trial and tribulations with this stuff. My final solution has been---If it sounds good then stick with it! I'm through spending my money chasing my tail for the "Perfect sound." And by the way, NOBODY KNOWS WHAT PERFECT SOUND IS! |
Jeff, The last statement you made about "truer" sound is where the problem lies. What is truer? Is it based on measurements or are you ears "truer" than mine (which could be the case considering the age factor!) My point was that to each individual,truer takes on a different opinion. No speaker is perfect, as I said, and therefore is not truer unless you use a subjective analysis(as in your case---your ears.)
I actually talked to Richard Vandersteen at some length about his design and, like you, he could not listen to anything but a "slow slope.")Is he wrong in his opinion? To his ears, it was "Truer." He also believes in the "Baffleless" design. I definitely feel that speakers with a large area surrounding the tweeter and midrange affects the sound negatively.
I have listened to your speakers extensively. I do know set up affects them and they do have a sweet spot. I also find them somewhat analytical with a slightly dry sound. I hate to say this but they sound somewhat similiar to the B&W Nautilus line(which I owned for a while--805's and 802's)which i feel ARE excellent speakers but not for me.
I'm certainly not going to tell you your design is wrong and that your speakers don't sound correct to you. I'm sure your speakers are well built and deserving of the interest they get. However, I am going to tell you they do not sound truer to me for whatever reason. I find the Vandersteen to be as dynamic and accurate as sounding as any speaker system I have owned. They may truly be +- 10db off axis but they sound damn good on axis where I listen. |
There is NO port on the Vandersteen 2,3 and 5 series speakers. They are not claimed to be trasmission lines in literature or anywhere else. They have an 8" woofer and a 10" driver (operates below 35hz) in a SEALED enclosure. The 10" driver is active, not passive. The Vandersteens are also as close to time aligned speakers as there is out there. They are also phase correct. Also, they used a baffleless design that does away with reflections from the front of the cabinet and the drivers are staggered for alignment. Vandersteen has covered all the bases in his designs. All drivers operate in the same acoustic phase(something a lot of speakers don't)
I don't know where you got your information from but you need to recheck it. End of story! |
Look at a Vandersteen crossover and decide for yourself. There is a lot more to the crossover than most other speakers. As for being complex, I have always thought the more pieces parts the more the complexity. You can get a glimpse on his website. |
Roy, I certainly agree that all reflections are not removed from the Vandersteen's minimal baffle designs. However, it is much better to attempt a solution that helps minimize these reflections than the way a lot of designers have basically ignored them using a large area baffle. When you look at the front of a Vandersteen, you see very, very little cabinet structure around the drivers. I think Vandersteen has attempted to address a lot of issues with sound engineering in a very reasonably priced product.
I was actually attempting to respond to Karls statement that the Vandersteen's were ported designs which they are not with the exception of the 1 series which is stated to be a transmision line of sorts.
I did know that the woofer arrangement was unique in its implementation. However, again, I was responding to Karls since the driver(s) are active, not passive, although, as you stated, the front woofer will move the back woofer, etc since they share the same sealed chamber.
I have certainly enjoyed reading your posts. They are very informative. Its nice to cut through the hype and get to the point. |
