Tarzan
pfm Member
anytime you are passing brum you are most welcome to hear some eaton legacy
Thanks.
anytime you are passing brum you are most welcome to hear some eaton legacy
Booked in for a demo of the Arden next week. Also going to try Luxman and Primaluna Intergrated amps with them. I have no real idea what to expect as my current system Rega Brio-R and Monitor Audio Gold 50 is the best I’ve ever heard (I don’t know anyone who cares enough about music to bother with a system) hoping it blows my mind, could be an expensive day!
I really should have done an update!Lovely, do let us know how you get on.
The rising response is on axis and a function of the horn, Tannoy used to measure 15' off axis and the same for listening. Power response is a much better indicator of perceived tonal balance.
From Troels showing Monitor Gold @ 0,10,20,30,40 degrees off axis etc
The tulip waveguides are better behaved.
That's interesting as none of the vintage DC drivers I've measured exhibited a peak at 3kHz, they were all very well behaved in this area. This includes MG12, MG15 and HPD315.Very interesting. What about with treble energy -1? And do you have any links to similar measurements for HPDs, both 10" and 12"? I haven't measured my Eatons, but when I first got them it was obvious from listening to test tones that there was a problem around 3KHz. Getting the crossover tweaked to bring that down a little worked wonders.
https://pinkfishmedia.net/forum/threads/tannoys-always-full-of-surprises.215692/page-4V What about with treble energy -1?
From the original Cheviot (HPD 315) owners manual (pdf here):
"...loudspeakers should be placed 2 to 4 metres apart so that the listening position and speakers form a triangle with equal sides. For optimum stereo imaging over a wide area, they should be angled inwards so that their axes cross a few feet in front of the listening position." (my emphasis added).
I'm curious how many Tannoy owners use the above setup geometry? As all the Tannoys I've owned have been large enclosures, I didn't have enough free space to toe-in the cabs that much, so I usually toed them in just a little bit so that their axes crossed behind my listening seat. When I had my Lockwoods I sited them more or less parallel to the walls, which was effective at taming the rising HFs but created a "centre-fill hole" if the listening position was moved forward too much.
With regards to loudspeaker dispersion patterns in general, and not strictly those from a Tannoy DC driver, if one is seeking to minimise the off-axis roll-off in the horizontal axis and provide stable imaging for listeners to the left or right of the hot seat, I'd expect a more even left/right tonal balance with the speaker axes aiming at the hotspot instead of in front or behind, or else the angles will favour one off-axis location more than the other. Is that a logical expectation?
Given that a lot of DCs went into recording studios I'm curious why Tannoy didn't put more effort into achieving a flatter HF response? I guess the counterargument to that would be that studio engineers ought to know the strengths and flaws of their monitoring equipment inside and out and be able to make subconscious allowances for these, so that the equipment colouration doesn't colour their mixing/mastering decisions. I wonder if said recording studios of that era EQd their monitors for a flatter target response or just used them in stock form?
do they still have the characteristic rising HF response?