Joe Roberts wrote:

In accordance with my deeply felt philosophy that one should do with audio whatever makes one happy, I certainly recognize and defend your right to think and do what you please.

Joe Roberts wrote:

I think this site is an interesting spot on the map and it is what it is. I'm certain that some people get a lot out of poking around here. On that note, good job Mr. Cat.

Audio Federation have publish some images from the Silbatone room at CES, even it is in their new idiotic format of the “magazine” but they still visible.

http://spintricity.com/445/public/Vol1-3/page182

What attracted me in the images is to see what Silbatone did with this front filter on this driver. It looks like they wanted to cut some front response proportionally to the back response. In past I played a LOT with all imaginable methods to do it. It is quite complex as any front filtration never does what you what but the filtration does also what it wants/ This is kind of complicated ballet to play, balancing the cons and pros. In case of the light cones of compression drivers and front filters it is VERY tricky as any acoustic impedance front-damps the diaphragms. I never was able to found a good solution and then learn to resolve my needs without employing the front filtration.

Sp, here is what I am thinking. Let pretend that Silbatone folks wanted to kill 3dB from their Manger front radiation. They made up a front filter, sort of bandwidth matched acoustic divider, but what if they do not do it? (Let presume that the Manger’s front radiation do not need any front correction) What might be interesting to try is to put behind the driver, right before the horn throat, a chamber, using the back-loaded Manger as a compression driver. The compression chamber might add a few db of the horn gain and by playing with chamber resonances and compression ratio it is possible to do “some” frequency corrections that Silbatone front-filter I am sure doing.

I have to note that it is very tricky to play with but if the right configuration found then I think it “might” get rid the necessity to throw a white flag of the front filters…

Joe Roberts wrote:

Interesting concept but let me point out a few considerations. The diffusor does performs a mild "equalization" function if you want to call it that but it is also an aid to dispersion. It is light "EQ"...3dB might be about right. Without any diffusor, the front radiation of the Manger gets up in your face a bit and stands out from the horn. I believe that this is independent of frequency response issues and more to do with radiation angle characteristics and the perceptible texture of front vs. Backhorn radiation.

All my experiments with diffusers, screens, refractors whatever it might be called convinced me that it has absolutely nothing to do with radiation angles and widening of dispersion. It is ONLY about the specific attenuation at specific frequency. All those “in your face” feeling are cured not by widening of dispersion here and there and poetic take about acoustic lenses but juts running sound at fractions dB more or less at specific frequencies. What they do is matching the fixed character of Manger’s front radiation to the accidental and most likely very much not optimal sound Manger does from back. There is nothing wrong with it but it would be absolutely not necessary if the back horn would be loaded with own properly selected driver.

Joe Roberts wrote:

I tried taking it off and forget it. Ruins the coherency of the speaker and you can then hear front radiation + horn radiation.  At the upper range of the horn, the speaker is fairly wide in directionality. At 150hz, the Manger unit beams. The illusion of a single source is lost.

It nothing to do with “single source”. The “single source” is absolutely idiotic concept that was a pure verbal invents of Moron who sell single-drivers speakers in the past and who made week peoples to feel that the “single source” is a meaningful trim.  The “single source” neither is a fact a byproduct of a specific sound reproduction method but it has no existence in LIVE sound and there is not need for it pursue in sound reproduction.

Joe Roberts wrote:

All in all, the diffusor is a decent practical solution in a number of ways. I fear that no matter what is done behind the driver, there is the issue of beaming and getting up in your grill that the front radiation poses. A bit TOO immediate and direct without the diffusor.

I think diffuser is a brutal solution. I would like to see more elegant solution, like an introduction of some kind of directional pressure beams that would act upon the Manger cone and to jolt or comforting it what it is necessary. The mind back chamber might (or might not) be one of the way to do it, it would also add some dB to the back loading the looks like needed in this design.

Joe Roberts wrote:

Silbatone was formerly in a marketing partnership with Loth X, whose advance in Lowther-type back horn design …

You probably better shall not mention it as Loth X were absolutely idiotic in design and in sound. Knowing that your Korean flaks are satisfied with their Manger single driver it was not hard to predict where their formers audio experiences came from. Ah, was it Western Loch X Ness Electric?

Joe Roberts wrote:

I don't remember the details of this argument, but the point is that you mess with the back, you're also messing with the front.

If course you do but this was exactly the point: not to “mess” but to trey make the NECESSARY impact. I did not say that it is easy but it more noble and more elegant, not to mention that it might help to the bass horn that always a plus.

Joe Roberts wrote:

The Manger front radiation is so fine and well behaved that I'd be worried about interfering with what the Manger does best.

Apparently the Manger front radiation is NOT fine, particularly in context of the back horn. If it were fine the Silbatone would not create a federal case around the diffuser. It is so self-evident that it you need to deny it then you are self-delusional or too marketingly-academic.

I would like to see more elegant solution, like an introduction of some kind of directional pressure beams that would act upon the Manger cone and to jolt or comforting it what it is necessary.

The “single source” neither is a fact a byproduct of a specific sound reproduction method but it has no existence in LIVE sound and there is not need for it pursue in sound reproduction.

Joe Roberts wrote:

The problem is two or three identifiable frequency-dependent sources has no reference in live music either …

 It is true, so the amount of the channels is not mandatory or necessary qualifier for sound reproduction and therefore the single point radiation is not better of worse then multiple points of radiation or cloud-point of radiation. The amount of channels is responsible for OTHER things but NOT for the geometry of radiation, at least as far as the single point of radiation concern… 

Joe Roberts wrote:

…and when you can hear this in reproduction, you are really losing the game.

Joe Roberts wrote:

We are working with reproduction, not live music. Nothing sounds like live music, except live music. Since this is obviously the case, any attempt to rank our failed attempts at perfect recreation as more or less "like" live music involves arbitrary judgments, taste, and an underlying delusion that reproduction is even possible. A better term than "reproduction"  might be  "pale imitiation."

And based upon this preamble I am sure that you feel that since your Korean lobbyee made a single-driver speaker then a proper audio delusion is possible only by the bogus single-point radiation? The importance of single-point radiation is as false as importance of speaker orientation toward the North Pole.  It makes good talking points for uninformed people and it is about it. BTW, I disagree with the whole concept of “perfect recreation” and “underlying delusion” that you trying to advocate. I know it is a convenient concept to sell toys for hoi-polloi public but it is not where my interests and my experiences lay.

Joe Roberts wrote:

Trying to characterize everything in terms of frequency response is a dead end, having to do with physics and meters and whatnot, not music. I always wondered how all these Romy/Harry Pearson type "absolute sound" guys don't see the disjunct between dry technical evaluation and sensuous musical experience.

I think you need to read my site bit to educate yourself about what you are asking. There is not Romy/Pearson association. BTW, I use frequency response in different way then you apparently understand it. Yes, my view of horns is very different than anybody’s else as I refuse to recognize horns as pressure transformation device. In my view horn are equalization devise: how and why I see it this way - you need to do some reading – I have written about it extensively. Also, with all do respect, I do not think that you need to lecture me about the meters of music in context of playback. Considering that you are uninformed about the inherited musical limitation of a single-driver topology it is very predictable what kind music you use for your audio appraisals. I do not what to go there but be advised that touching an elephant’s tail you might have a wrong impression what elephant is all about. 

Joe Roberts wrote:

Emotional response takes into account factors such as taste, musical preferences, differences in individual hearing capabilities, and so on. The "human sound meter" delusion pretends that such factors do not intervene, when in fact they are the most relevant and vital aspects of the audio illusion. Why else have a stereo?

If Junior Wells is a reference point of what music is all about then you might be right but I would wonder THEN: why to have any more the table-radio audio objectives to begin with…

Anyhow, a properly implemented multi-channel installation has immense among of advantages against single-channel including the geometry of imaging.

I am sure that you feel that since your Korean lobbyee made a single-driver speaker then a proper audio delusion is possible only by the bogus single-point radiation?

I disagree with the whole concept of “perfect recreation” and “underlying delusion” that you trying to advocate [...]it is not where my interests and my experiences lay.

There is not Romy/Pearson association.

Considering that you are uninformed about the inherited musical limitation of a single-driver topology it is very predictable what kind music you use for your audio appraisals.

If Junior Wells is a reference point of what music is all about then you might be right but I would wonder THEN: why to have any more the table-radio audio objectives to begin with…

Joe Roberts wrote:

Imaging...another hi-fi delusion. I used to record the Philadelphia Orchestra. The orchestra does not image.

Would it be in 80 sunder Riccardo Muti? No wonder that it did not image. To be more serious I have to say that denying orchestra imaging is a very sad thing to do. The dynamic of tone propagation between the individual instruments of sections and the artistry of tone delivering from one group of instruments to another is so much valuable that to deny it is demonstrate an absolute blindness in my view. Even a single well-trained first violin section with 16 pair of chairs can do some leading edge run across the whole section that if it properly used in context of music might be absolutely wonderful to experience. I do not know even what to start to argue this point. There is so much music specific written for space separated instruments and instrumental groups what wiping it all out…  is kind of strange… Are you sure that you recorded the Philadelphia Orchestra?

Joe Roberts wrote:

Remember that individual ears and brains are on the receiving end. This is a matter of perception and phenomenology.

I would say that it is the mater not of individual ears and brains but rather the mater objectives and reference point. There are some people out there who feel that “100 year is solitude” is a book about incest and Inbreeding…

Joe Roberts wrote:

The "live music" standard injects value judgments and taste into the evaluation procedure, even though it advocates an ostensibly "objective" standard. If all systems fail to achieve the standard, how can we choose among imperfect results?

I disagree with the whole premises of this formulation. Read my site, I have written a lot about it, advocating both sides of the view BTW.

Joe Roberts wrote:

Until I hear a really solid objective way to choose among imperfect systems, this will be my assessment of the devotees of "the absolute sound."  Sadly, there is nothing inherent in the live music standard that contains hints on how to perform the task of choosing among our shitty imperfect attempts at reproduction. This will always be a value judgment, as it should be.

Actually do not substitute the topic. Initially it was not a debate about the “perfect” or “imperfect” systems. The single-driver topology is very far from the position where this debate might be even started. The “perfect” or “imperfect” view and the philosophy about perception my kick in where the elemental and kindergarten question of rudimental audio problems are more or less resolved at the level of low announce. The single-driver topology is actually fails at the level of the simplistic announces. Therefore I do not think there is any need to look at the dead rat and envision a giant unicorn… unless you get prepaind….

Joe Roberts wrote:

I thought you said you liked blues harp? If you can't enjoy Junior Wells on a half-decent table radio, you must be lost in audio la la land. Sure, I'd rather be listening on something that enhances the experience for me a little bit more, but a table radio or stock Volvo car radio will certainly do in a pinch. The way I know that some systems are better than my radio is that the emotional impact of the master harp blower, Mr. Wells, is more powerful and engaging. Here I am working from musical experience, rather than the technical superiority of the more elaborate setup. I know very well what a harmonica played through an amplifer sounds like in my room, even though I suck compared to a master blues player. NO stereo can do this. It is neither fair nor reasonable to expect it. If  blues reproduction is a low standard, as you seem to imply,  larger scale or wider-range inputs or whatever it is that you are talking about are even more elusive targets of ideal reproduction.

Do not take me wrong. I have nothing against blues and I might even listen it from time to time. However, it has absolutely no relation to my audio objectives. It is very simple to make playback installation to play very convincingly and very presentable a simplistic music and 99% of audio systems out there are specially made for it.  (Not necessarily “specially-made” but they made to serve the primitive demands of their system designers). Here is what all that single-driver foolish idea comes from with the people who swear that they had multiple orgasms when they heard their “girl with banjo”. The Loth X association of your Korean friends is a powerful indicator to me what they were looking for before they were trying to make their new speaker. Anyhow, I never made a secret that I discard any audio accomplishments if they are not match with “Content –Loaded music” ™ and synchronized with person’s advancement in understanding of more evolve nature of musicality than “it does give me a pressure”.

If you do not understand it then you do not understand it, but you are not alone, unfortunately.

Would it be in 80 sunder Riccardo Muti? No wonder that it did not image.

The “perfect” or “imperfect” view and the philosophy about perception my kick in where the elemental and kindergarten question of rudimental audio problems are more or less resolved at the level of low announce.

Anyhow, I never made a secret that I discard any audio accomplishments if they are not match with “Content –Loaded music” ™ and synchronized with person’s advancement in understanding of more evolve nature of musicality than “it does give me a pressure”

more evolve nature of musicality than “it does give me a pressure”

Well, I see where this dialog is going and what the essence of the dialog is all about. I think it is the point where the sings are comprehensible -enough, at least on the subject of the Silbatone Acoustics new speakers. I told or implyed everything that I thing needed to be said on the subject and I presume Joe Robbers from another side have expressed what he would like to. With all said, and from all that from my point of view Joe did not understand about the said, I think the 35 posts of this thread turned out to be a very good review of Aporia speakers. At least it did work out for me and I feel it perfectly set the level of my expectations from the Silbatone new speaker. Well, I had my judged premonitions but Joe brought so sensory in this subject material and tangible evidences.  Something suggests me that Aporia might not even have such a profound “review” in future. It might be more empty adjectives  expressed about them in future by the industry cheerleaders but I think it might be not as much public discussion about this  speaker that would such indicatively demonstrate what the foundation of Aporia might be all about. I would certainly wish them better than that but knowing how the audio products born, live and die I think all the rest about Aporia will be the typical single-driver chitchat of the Loth X magnitude and single-driver eyes-rolling intelligence.

I do not know if in Korea exists the presumption of innocence but how valuable the presumption of innocence would be if Aporia listeners absolutely voluntary, even without understanding it, admit the guilt? The human evolution in context of a girl with banjo, the scientifically verifiable objective standard and accused objectivism fetish, the Western civilization and racism, the “long time no see” and lightly vaselined Musical Ecstasy, the swinging the lasso of subjective justifications of what a kilogram is… I do not think I even seen it all before together, or didn’t I? Well, I thought that Silbatone’s Aporia might be a “new” speaker as Joe promised. But it turning out that it is just another Botox of the damn single-driver idea. The circus has moved to another town…

Joe Roberts wrote:

Another reviewer who can write the review without hearing the product. Now THAT is something new.

BTW, I have a incredibly accurate record of sniffing those thoughts.

Anyhow, if you have Ku Klux Klan members who very enthusiastically encourage you about their new candidate in Congress, claiming that the candidate has a “new view on racism”, then how serious would you consider to pay attention to this candidate?

Harry Pearson and Peter Aczel

Joe Roberts wrote:

You have not heard Mangers, Aporia, or Loth-X speakers yet you thought sniffed yourself into an incredibly accurate picture of what they sound like. Great trick!

It is not correct. I did not report the “incredibly accurate picture of what they sound like” but based upon my experiences with single drivers and based upon the level of comment by the people who do appreciate them I do experience the incredibly low interest in those speakers. It would be less applicable to Mangers thsme that might be a good MF driver in right application.

Joe Roberts wrote:

I admit I do this about, say, plastic cone mini towers. But while at CES I went and heard about ten plastic cone mini towers. They BLEW. But, at least I gave them a listen. Who knows, maybe somebody finally came out with a one that I liked. They didn't.

And I am sure that you will found a zillion people who report multiple orgasms and the sensation of rebirth just after they heard those plastic cone mini towers.

Joe Roberts wrote:

I point to your discussion about the Aporia diffusor. You denied that it affected the directionality of the speaker, yet I actually heard it with and without, moved across the room while listening to each configuration, and I HEARD the reduction in beaminess with the diffusor.

Of course I did not deny the affected the directionality, looking at the geometry of Manger the radiation directionality is obvious. I said that to fight with this directionality by the means of external diffuser is not what attracts me, not to mention that they used diffuser not to fight directionality but primary to EQ front/back response.

Joe Roberts wrote:

As for the relation of this metaphor to the ongoing dialogue here, I haven't the faintest idea what you are talking about. Enlighten me.

This has to do a lot with the “sniffing” that you misunderstood. I have to tell honestly that I was very much disappointed with your general comments about your expectation and your demands from audio. I do not mean to be judgmental, let say that you and I have different gold in sound reproduction. Let juts throw a comment that it hate very deferent audio to render the task if elevator music listening and the other tasks.  I do not what to discuss this subject, you had to discover it long time ago and if you do not them you seem in very shallow audio water. I do not mean to sound offensive and to express the “veiled personal attacks”; it is just how I see the things and I say it openly. I think if you discover “other” interests in audio then what you currently have then you suddenly might realize that some topologies are fundamentally by dealt dead for any more of less “higher” tasks…

Joe Roberts wrote:

The "absolute sound of unamplified live music (i.e. classical)" as the only valid reference, the transference of objective criteria of musical sound to listening evaluation of musical performance, the notion that the "objective" nature of the evaluation program yields an unassailable platform. And worst, the idea that if somebody disagrees or has different preferences they are WRONG, not serious, and somehow less evolved. This is total ethnocentricism and outlandish snobbery. This is corny and discredited stuff to me, but perhaps you missed it the first time around. This kind of rhetoric can be very evil in the way it sets up fake authority and an us vs. them mentality. I saw this first-hand in the 80s. I worked in a high-end store at the peak of this stupidity. You claim to be against the morons, yet practice the very techniques of the shepherds of audio morons. Laugh all you want, but I see a quasi HP in cat suit.

I do not what to argue this point. I just would mention that it requires different tools to accomplish different goals.  It is very simple to make audio to play well pop music. To seriously play serious classical repertoire is way more complicated task that demands very different means. I told you before that you might try to read my page dedicated to Macondo Acoustic System (on home page’s left nav.) but you ignored it.

Tuga,

I do not think we spoke about the specific problem of the single-driver class and one of the reason why I never brought it up was because I presume that every person with sane knows them and those problems are not even arguable.

However I would like to make a correction, in my view very important. You said that one of the fundamental shortcomings of single-driver class as they do not do wide frequency range. It is true but I would like to inject a twist into it. The problem with single-drivers is not that they can’t do peripheral frequencies – they do it. However they do it very badly and THIS is the problem. Pretend that you have two more complimentary channels above and below and you do the evaluation at which point the MF channel do worth then the peripheral channels. You will eventually lock the single-driver class into a very narrow NF band-pass or exactly where it shell be. Everyone bitch about the Lowther but look how wonderful the Lowther wok in Horings where it sits in MF only range.

Anyhow, my point was not what the single-driver speakers do not do (or as Joe is willing to present it) but rather that while they do what they shall not be doing they poison so much that the only thing that does not lose value with them is to play Patricia Barber with flute, thank Got she can’t blow the flute and to sing at the same time.

“I do not what to go there but be advised that touching an elephant’s tail you might have a wrong impression what elephant is all about.”

More accurately this should read as follows: “I do not what to go there but be advised that touching a horse’s ass gives you a pretty good idea about what the horse’s ass is all about.”

Your prose paints a better picture of your vanity than any artist could.

Then there’s this:

JR: “The problem is two or three identifiable frequency-dependent sources has no reference in live music either …”

RTC: “It is true…”

No, it is not true.  You’re both dead wrong.  All instruments are “frequency dependent sources.”  Do you really think that a bass drum and a piccolo produce an equivalent frequency spectrum? 

My takeaway from this thread is that the two main contributors to it enjoy postulating and posturing about what constitutes “proper music reproduction” yet have virtually no interest in actually listening to music itself.  If this were not the case, they’d be doing exactly that this very minute instead of spending every waking hour on this site doing what's really important to them: preening.

Joe Roberts wrote:

The illusion of a single source is lost.

Romy the Cat wrote:

The “single source” neither is a fact a byproduct of a specific sound reproduction method but it has no existence in LIVE sound and there is not need for it pursue in sound reproduction.

Joe Roberts wrote:

I have had round Edgarhorns and Lowthers so I understand what narrowing radiation as a function of frequency is about. My thought sniff tells me Romy's rig is good enough that even if there is some component of self-delusion, as is usually the case, at least it is not embarrasingly delusional. I could say that I had similar setups in the late 80s and early 90s so I KNOW what it sounds like, but that would be stupid.

drdna wrote:

I would like to hear the opinions from people who have heard good point source/single driver installations (ignoring the shortcomings). What does the point source add to the audio reproduction? Adrian

tuga wrote:

If you have a midrange driver you can try that for yourself.

tuga wrote:

BTW, do you consider electrostatic speakers to be single point sources? Going back to the Silbatones, I wonder whether or not the back-loaded horn should be considered a point source...

Telus wrote:

JR: “The problem is two or three identifiable frequency-dependent sources has no reference in live music either …” RTC: “It is true…” No, it is not true.  You’re both dead wrong.

Although I do not disagree with you but you need to view Joe’s view about live music from a certain simplistic single-source point of view. Mostly his pop music is single event music and played mostly by a single instrument a time. So, from a certain perspective I do see why he considers that live music has single source radiation nature. (Let forget at this point about reflections).  So, I do not think that Joe would take any consideration about intermodulations, Doppler of exertion desideration seriously – it gives him a “pleasure” and it is all that counts. The definition of complexity for those people is be able to hear a phonogram and be able differentiate Willie Dixon from Patricia Barber and it is about it.

would you accept a photograph from a camera if it didn't do "blacks" and "extreme darks"?

inability to play loud and intermodulation distortion

This makes it inappropriate for evaluating a system or a component from a technical point of view when compared to jazz band or, even better, to a symphonic orchestra which are far richer in diversity, scale or any other parameter that you can think of.

And I am sure that you will found a zillion people who report multiple orgasms and the sensation of rebirth just after they heard those plastic cone mini towers.

I do not mean to sound offensive and to express the “veiled personal attacks”; it is just how I see the things and I say it openly. I think if you discover “other” interests in audio then what you currently have then you suddenly might realize that some topologies are fundamentally by dealt dead for any more of less “higher” tasks…

Tone in language is entirely different from tone in language.