hargerst wrote on Sat, 19 December 2009 09:08 |
Uh, George Augspurger doesn't lend his name to other people's speakers (he makes a few of his own) unless they're pretty damn good. Ed Cherney is mixing on them right now and says they have the best imaging of any speaker he's ever heard. |
Greg Youngman wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 08:30 | ||
It's hard for me to believe that a system could have better imaging than a dual-concentric. It also seems that the movable HF section would mess with the time alignment. I don't believe in global warming either. |
Greg Youngman wrote on Sun, 20 December 2009 10:30 |
It's hard for me to believe that a system could have better imaging than a dual-concentric. It also seems that the movable HF section would mess with the time alignment. |
hargerst wrote on Tue, 22 December 2009 08:41 | ||
Actually, the imaging goes up since there's no smearing from the low end sound or edge diffraction. |
hargerst wrote on Tue, 22 December 2009 18:19 | ||||||
|
hargerst wrote on Tue, 22 December 2009 21:08 | ||||||||
Since the entire MF/HF section rotates about the central axis of the cylinder, the actual voice coils of each speaker move coherently and stay in alignment. Time coherence? Try moving even slightly off axis with a dual-concentric speaker and see what happens. And dual-concentrics still suffer from edge diffraction effects. |
Greg Youngman wrote on Wed, 23 December 2009 15:11 |
I would have to go back and read some of my AES publications to intelligently argue my point. Publications, that along with my personal listening experience made me a believer in dual-concentric designs. But, at the end of the day, one may also argue that there is no perfect speaker system, or microphone, or anything else. They're just tools. I hope to be able to hear the Tridents some day. By the way, Harvey, Merry Christmas! |