advertisement


What exactly is "imaging" ?

I’d love to hear the huge brick corner speakers he advocated. It is a huge shame that the surrounds have failed catastrophically on so many Briggs-era Wharfedale speakers,
I have quite alot of 50s/60s wharfedale drivers if you want to do the bricklaying ? ... and all the suspensions are OK on mine
 
Personally I would give anyone who follows wigwam, computer audiophile and especially ASR a very wide berth.

I wish I was as sure about one thing as Tuga seems to be about everything

Would you mind addressing/rebutting the ideas instead?

And what’s so special about PFM that you don’t find in the other forums? An echo chamber?
Many members here are also members in the others?
 
You’re part of an even smaller minority, that of people who enjoy omnidirectional speakers
meow! Omnidirectional speakers of the MBL, German Physiks type are very thin on the ground in the UK, so inevitably a minority have heard, let alone in a domestic environment and carefully set up, and therefore few, having heard them, are likely to like them. Of course I realise you know from your reading how they sound but do you? From your posts I think not!

As for the Wam; been a member for over a decade and still look in because there are some interesting posters (including you), some of whom post here. It’s certainly completely different to the Wam of old, both for worse and better. Good to have a choice though.
 
Would you mind addressing/rebutting the ideas instead?

And what’s so special about PFM that you don’t find in the other forums? An echo chamber? Many members here are also members in the others?

From long experience Ive learned that attempting to rebut arguments on a hifi forum is largely a futile exercise. No-one ever changes their mind, especially someone as strident and cock-sure in their opinions as you.

If you’re active on three or four forums I’d suggest that you need to spend more time listening to music and less on the tech. Forums are for entertainment but some seem to pour their self-esteem into them and wave their opinions around as a “look-at-me” flag.
 
From long experience Ive learned that attempting to rebut arguments on a hifi forum is largely a futile exercise. No-one ever changes their mind, especially someone as strident and cock-sure in their opinions as you.

If you’re active on three or four forums I’d suggest that you need to spend more time listening to music and less on the tech. Forums are for entertainment but some seem to pour their self-esteem into them and wave their opinions around as a “look-at-me” flag.

I must have touched a nerve... Sorry
 
All the engineers and manufacturers you mentioned were at the forefront in the day but things have move on a bit
Spinorama would have been a convenient useful tool for those designers and engineers back in the day, the physics hasn't changed though and many of us- including you, seem happy to listen 40 year old loudspeaker designs as they get a lot of the fundamentals right.
 
Spinorama would have been a convenient useful tool for those designers and engineers back in the day, the physics hasn't changed though and many of us- including you, seem happy to listen 40 year old loudspeaker designs as they get a lot of the fundamentals right.

I agree that many old speakers get the fundamentals right. In fact it is somewhat baffling to see contemporary designs get fundamentals wrong in a time where even a DIY or a YouTuber can easily perform his own measurements for little money.

I am not a big fan of the Spinorama to be honest, by itself it’s insufficient for characterising performance and an oversimplification. It can be an effective marketing tool with the (pious) objectivist crowd and has gained new traction thanks to ASR.

Audiophilia is sorely missing a more balanced (mind/heart) approach from the influencers. They’re either wearing blinkers or their mind is so open the brain has fallen off...
 
I agree that many old speakers get the fundamentals right
I think that's the issue with most of modern hifi design
The fundamentals are based on a few inadequate measurements which do not really relate to sound quality, but are marketed to be valid.. and so many fall for that, inc myself in the past.

Coupled with the fact there is so much real world variation in gear that supposedly measures almost perfectly .. there is a rat to be smelled !
 
I think that's the issue with most of modern hifi design
The fundamentals are based on a few inadequate measurements which do not really relate to sound quality, but are marketed to be valid.. and so many fall for that, inc myself in the past.

Coupled with the fact there is so much real world variation in gear that supposedly measures almost perfectly .. there is a rat to be smelled !

Demand for large enough speakers has dropped too and audio as any other business is driven by demand. Perhaps because homes have been slowly but steadily shrinking in size and because music playing/listening has found new ways.

High end, apparently in my view thanks to magazines and perhaps the retail chain, has put an extra nail in the coffin by generating an artificial inflation of prices which does not reflect the performance...
 
Demand for large enough speakers has dropped too and audio as any other business is driven by demand.
Yes, that's true but I know large hi efficiency speakers *can* sound much better than most slimline usually ported loudspeakers.. mine certainly do..
But in my view the advantages of high efficiency set ups are geared towards the diyer, not the hifi shops.. the ott pricing of much of it puts it out of reach of most pockets anyway.... Which is a shame, as less than 6 or 7k spent on good components can, if done properly with a little knowledge, woodworking and soldering thrown in.. produce a stunning lifelike sound
 
Last edited:
I don't recall if it was in this thread or another but someone linked to a website that had recordings to test the phantom imaging / spatial abilities of your speaker setup. I don't suppose anyone remembers what the website was?
 
I've just done the following test on my Ditton 66s to investigate my dissatisfaction with their phantom centre imaging at their current location in my room (I have them very wide apart and close to the corners of my room, toed-in to cross in front of my listening seat):


My results:
!) Pass
2) Pass
3) Pass
4) Fail? The Phantom Centre Stability is dead central for bass, but gradually and steadily moves out laterally towards the speakers as frequency increases.
5) Pass
6) Fail? Huge difference noticed for bass, significant difference noticed for midrange, but a much smaller difference noticed for treble.
7) Pass
8) Pass
9) Pass
10) Pass
11) Pass
12) Didn't test

I'd be grateful if others could run test segments 4), 5) and 6) on your speaker systems and report back, if it's not too much trouble? Thanks.

EDIT - Direct links to test segments below, courtesy of @tuga:

0:00 Channel Identification
0:04 Channel Levels
0:13 Channel Matching (Bass, Mid, Treble)
0:31 Phantom Center Stability <-- 4
1:11 Stereo Width <-- 5
1:51 Polarity Alignment (Bass, Mid, Treble) <-- 6
2:09 Continuous Sine Sweep
3:20 Stepped Sine Sweep
4:26 Bass Sweep Rise & Fall
4:35 Room Echoes
4:44 Compressor/Limiter Detection
4:55 Unit Impulse
 
Last edited:
I've just done the following test on my Ditton 66s to investigate my dissatisfaction with their phantom centre imaging at their current location in my room (I have them very wide apart and close to the corners of my room, toed-in to cross in front of my listening seat):


My results:
!) Pass
2) Pass
3) Pass
4) Fail? The Phantom Centre Stability is dead central for bass, but gradually and steadily moves out laterally towards the speakers as frequency increases.
5) Pass
6) Fail? Huge difference noticed for bass, significant difference noticed for midrange, but a much smaller difference noticed for treble.
7) Pass
8) Pass
9) Pass
10) Pass
11) Pass
12) Didn't test

I'd be grateful if others could run tests 4), 5) and 6) on your speaker systems and report back, if it's not too much trouble? Thanks.

I am listing the tests for reference:

0:00 Channel Identification
0:04 Channel Levels
0:13 Channel Matching (Bass, Mid, Treble)
0:31 Phantom Center Stability <-- 4
1:11 Stereo Width <-- 5
1:51 Polarity Alignment (Bass, Mid, Treble) <-- 6
2:09 Continuous Sine Sweep
3:20 Stepped Sine Sweep
4:26 Bass Sweep Rise & Fall
4:35 Room Echoes
4:44 Compressor/Limiter Detection
4:55 Unit Impulse
 
I am listing the tests for reference:

0:00 Channel Identification
0:04 Channel Levels
0:13 Channel Matching (Bass, Mid, Treble)
0:31 Phantom Center Stability <-- 4
1:11 Stereo Width <-- 5
1:51 Polarity Alignment (Bass, Mid, Treble) <-- 6
2:09 Continuous Sine Sweep
3:20 Stepped Sine Sweep
4:26 Bass Sweep Rise & Fall
4:35 Room Echoes
4:44 Compressor/Limiter Detection
4:55 Unit Impulse
Thanks, I'll add that to my post as well if that's ok.
 
Yes, that's true but I know large hi efficiency speakers *can* sound much better than most slimline usually ported loudspeakers.. mine certainly do..
But in my view the advantages of high efficiency set ups are geared towards the diyer, not the hifi shops.. the ott pricing of much of it puts it out of reach of most pockets anyway.... Which is a shame, as less than 6 or 7k spent on good components can, if done properly with a little knowledge, woodworking and soldering thrown in.. produce a stunning lifelike sound

I'm sure many people would love to have 4-way speakers with 15" woofers but not only are there few available and at astronomical prices but they wouldn't fit most rooms either and/or get SWMBO approval.
 
Why four way? A pair of JBL M2's would do very well for me, thank you. They do go under the category very expensive, though.
 
Why four way? A pair of JBL M2's would do very well for me, thank you. They do go under the category very expensive, though.

They've been designed for high-SPL and a pretty Spinorama (it doesn't mean they won't sound good though).

Edit: from JBL I'd rather have the S9800s or S9900s (with a pair of subs).
 
Why four way? A pair of JBL M2's would do very well for me, thank you. They do go under the category very expensive, though.
If you start from a 15" bass unit and want a reasonable "native" match between driver directivities at all cross-over frequencies then I suspect four-way is easier than three and much easier than two. The M2 has a rather significant waveguide/horn on its tweeter to get a good directivity match from two very mis-matched driver sizes.
 
I'd be grateful if others could run test segments 4), 5) and 6) on your speaker systems and report back, if it's not too much trouble? Thanks.

Seems fine here, a good solid central image that does not collapse at any of the frequencies. This surprised me somewhat as I know neither my Tannoys or ears are perfect in their pair matching! I do set the system up focusing on this though, e.g. I won’t accept anything less than Miles Davis standing exactly in the centre in a believable fashion on a mono album! This system is an equilateral triangle of about 2.2m with a little toe-in.
 


advertisement


Back
Top