oldric_naubhoff said:BTW dynamic does not mean able to play loud. that can do every hi-fi'ish speaker on the market. dynamic means to be able to play whisper quiet and then overwhelmingly loud and then whisper quite again, and all that on a dime. small speakers will struggle at that because in order to reach certain volume level at certain frequency cone must travel more. and more travel means more necessary time needed to accelerate and decelerate. and that means poorer timing (not even mentioning higher harmonic distortion product). large diaphragms are easier to control because they don't need to travel that much to reach given spls. simples and that is empirically verifiable.
Was the term used not 'dynamicaly compressed' and would that not imply limited dynamic range and not that the speakers were not 'dynamic'?
Would much larger diaphragms not have more mass and therefore more inertia, making them more difficult to control?
oldric_naubhoff said:but still, the matter of fact is what Lind-says-it regardless if 99.9% of consumers prefer small bookshelf speakers.
BTW dynamic does not mean able to play loud. that can do every hi-fi'ish speaker on the market. dynamic means to be able to play whisper quiet and then overwhelmingly loud and then whisper quite again, and all that on a dime. small speakers will struggle at that because in order to reach certain volume level at certain frequency cone must travel more. and more travel means more necessary time needed to accelerate and decelerate. and that means poorer timing (not even mentioning higher harmonic distortion product). large diaphragms are easier to control because they don't need to travel that much to reach given spls. simples and that is empirically verifiable
What Lindsay say's may well be correct, it's also irrelevant and not what anyone, bar perhaps himself, would have assumed he meant.
I know what dynamics are. And in a 'like for like' kind of comparison between an active speaker and a passive one, the active will do them better due to the increased control of the driver - as I'm sure you know. If this is news to you, I suggest reading the links I posted on page 11 of this thread. You can compare notes with Plastic Penguin.
Overdose said:
IMO "dynamically compressed" implies both. how can you separate one from the other?
Overdose said:
this is a good point. but IMO only impulse signal measurement at high spl may tell which represents bigger compromise.
but the woofer in my speakers is just a piece plastic foil with thin aluminum ribbon bonded to the surface. and despite its size is sill way lighter than the moving mass of the woofer in your speakers. :shifty:
oldric_naubhoff said:
You made the distinction regarding 'dynamic'. Dynamic range/response and how a speaker reacts to dynamic change are not the same thing.
If only high SPLs can separate the differences (and this does not include further complications of comparing older large drivers with smaller modern and more efficient ones) then this moves the argument further into the realms of less relevance. Differences that are only evident (in some cases) using high SPLs and using very large speakers are only going to be observed by a very few people and none of which who are looking for bookshelf sized speakers.
I understand your point regarding larger speakers, but in the context so far, it's academic.
Overdose said:
I didn't brought out high spls only for the sake of going louder. Higher spls are naturally more demanding for speakers and the louder you take the measurements the more dreadful the results will tend to look like. I prefer an impulse response test because it shows how well the speaker's cone behave. obviously you don't want too much ringing (no ringing at all is absolute ideal, the diaphragm just starts and stops but it's only a theoretical goal, but some get closer than others). my point was to take such signal response measurements at different spls, with high spls being most important. because if a speaker measures poorly and looses its composure at high spls, say above 100dB, than it doesn't really matter that it reaches a high spl if the speaker can't maintain high SQ at high spls.
Phileas said:
My original comment about the AVI ADM 9's being a bit compressed was way back on page 9 of this thread. When I was responding to the original poster SimonDB's report on the results of his listening test at Bartletts.
Phileas, you may think that my post implied "normal" speakers - which may be why you replied by saying "That is plain wrong". I don't think that there was anything about my post that implied that the AVI's were a bit undynamic compared to other small ported inefficient 2 way speakers only.
We have no way of knowing - at this stage - what sort of speakers SimonDB was comparing the ADM 9's to when he commented that he found them uninvolving. He may not have been comparing them to any speakers inparticular at all but comparing the sound of them to a live performance.
Amyway, Phileas, does this mean that you are willing to concede that the AVI ADM 9's may well be a bit dynamically compressed compared to speakers like Avantgarde Duos or Trios or Klipschorns or EV Patricians?
I think that there's an important point behind this. The way that some people go on about AVI active speakers you'd think that they were equal to or better sounding than ALL other speakers in ALL respects. That they had better midrange transparency than Quad Electrostatics. That they have better bass quality than Bozak Concert Grands. That they're more dynamic than EV Patricians.
As to your statement that most people don't want monster speakers. Well that's true. But this is after all a hi-fi forum. High Fidelity. You are right in that a poster like myself who prioritises high fidelity over size and wife and acceptance factor does seem to be in the minority on this forum. Well please excuse me for that. Please excuse me for my posts on this high fidelity forum coming from someone whose highest priority is getting the highest fidelity replay from their audio recordings. Please excuse me for prioritising high fidelity over wife acceptance factor and not the other way round.
lindsayt said:
Well, I'll leave other readers to decide.
lindsayt said:
You can't just lump all AVI owners together. Personally I just try to correct the odd misconception.
There are of course may factors that determine the performance of a pair of speakers and some "monster" speakers may (for all I know) have advantages in one or two areas over "normal sized" ported box speakers - I suspect disadvantages in others outweigh these (and I don't just mean WAF etc...).
Trefor Patten
Well-known member
- Mar 31, 2008
- 40
- 0
- 18,540
John Duncan
Well-known member
- Jan 8, 2008
- 2,034
- 30
- 19,720
Tonestar1
Moderator
- Nov 4, 2008
- 239
- 97
- 18,870
[UNPUBLISHED DUPLICATE]
Call me a cynic but i'm rather suspicious of the amount of AVI evangelists on here for such a niche product. Perhaps one individual with many email addresses or perhaps a call to arms on a certain forum whenever an AVI thread comes up on here. All seems a bit suspicious to me.
I'm sure they are great speakers, I've never heard them and I don't paticularly want to, company owner was a condescending kn*b on this forum before he was banned. I have no urge to give him any business even if his speakers are the best thing since sliced bread.
Call me a cynic but i'm rather suspicious of the amount of AVI evangelists on here for such a niche product. Perhaps one individual with many email addresses or perhaps a call to arms on a certain forum whenever an AVI thread comes up on here. All seems a bit suspicious to me.
I'm sure they are great speakers, I've never heard them and I don't paticularly want to, company owner was a condescending kn*b on this forum before he was banned. I have no urge to give him any business even if his speakers are the best thing since sliced bread.
Tonestar1
Moderator
- Nov 4, 2008
- 239
- 97
- 18,870
Call me a cynic but i'm rather suspicious of the amount of AVI evangelists on here for such a niche product. Perhaps one individual with many email addresses or perhaps a call to arms on a certain forum whenever an AVI thread comes up on here. All seems a bit suspicious to me.
I'm sure they are great speakers, I've never heard them and I don't paticularly want to, company owner was a [EDITED BY MODS - no personal attacks please] on this forum before he was banned. I have no urge to give him any business even if his speakers are the best thing since sliced bread.
I'm sure they are great speakers, I've never heard them and I don't paticularly want to, company owner was a [EDITED BY MODS - no personal attacks please] on this forum before he was banned. I have no urge to give him any business even if his speakers are the best thing since sliced bread.
Can we assume it was a non AVI owner that started this thread.
I haven't counted (and I won't) but I'd have have thought B&W, Cyrus, Naim, Rega etc etc etc are posted about far more often.
I haven't counted (and I won't) but I'd have have thought B&W, Cyrus, Naim, Rega etc etc etc are posted about far more often.
John Duncan
Well-known member
- Jan 8, 2008
- 2,034
- 30
- 19,720
steve_1979
Well-known member
- Jul 14, 2010
- 231
- 10
- 18,795
Tonestar1 said:
I'm a real person. :wave:
Though I suspect that I may have been brainwashed by Ashley James and turned into a mindless AVI zombie incapable of thinking for myself. :shifty:
I believe user feedback is a large part of this forum. If it's an AVI owner, is this now called advertising? As an AVI owner, what I see is lots of people determined to prove AVI owners are mistaken with their feedback. Usually from people that haven't heard the speakers.
I do see advertising for both passive and active speakers on this forum but not for AVI.
I do see advertising for both passive and active speakers on this forum but not for AVI.
Tonestar1 said:
The AVI "evangelists" are people who own and use AVI speakers, day in day out. Almost certainly, like me, they have years of experience of traditional passive music reproduction systems so they know what they are talking about when they tell others that they prefer the sound that they get from AVI speakers. Many owners, me included, have found the sound of AVI speakers to be far more preferable to significantly more expensive systems that we have had in the past.
My aim is to let people know that there is a different way of spending money to get immense musical satisfaction.
There is no conspiracy of multi-members using this forum for advertising purposes. In fact when WHF is mentioned over on the AVI forum, the company owner[who you appear to have personaly attacked] is very reluctant to be drawn into bagging out the forum or the members of it.
The most vociferous nay-sayers are not AVI owners, nor have they heard them or other active speakers.
AVI speakers are clearly just not your thing but unfortunately you speak from complete ignorance, how do you expect to be taken seriously?
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram