This really IS an interesting question--one that very few people will probalbly agree on an answer to.
Having been closely associated with the Nearfield Acoustics Pipedreams, I'm hesitant to say that focus is 'better' with a single tweeter/line array/panel/omnipolar and so on.
These guys (certain model 21's) had 42 tweeters, one inch domes...with 21 4"+ inch mid's crossing over to a sub, or subs that were 18" cylinders. If all this sounds unusual, I thought so too. Then spent a couple of years 'setting them up' the right way (after many hours of listening).
One might think that (and some may even claim) there would be 'confusion' from the multiplicity of tweeters in a vertical array--AND one may point out, rightfully that 'comb-filter effects' are created by such--however, to my silly little ears, they sounded really remarkable and did not seem to have problems with this effect.
In fairness, there were 'supposed' technologies in place to ameliorate such issues, but I've never been able to gleen what those technologies might have been.
I only knew the Pipedreams to have been very dynamic and impressive, and to have had wonderful presence.
(Read Johnathan Valin's raves for a reference point).
There are many ways to achieve Nirvana, I suppose...so I'm, at this late stage of my existance, unable to say emperically which method of loudspeaker tech is 'better'.
Great question...and fodder for lots of interesting responses.
Best,
Larry
Having been closely associated with the Nearfield Acoustics Pipedreams, I'm hesitant to say that focus is 'better' with a single tweeter/line array/panel/omnipolar and so on.
These guys (certain model 21's) had 42 tweeters, one inch domes...with 21 4"+ inch mid's crossing over to a sub, or subs that were 18" cylinders. If all this sounds unusual, I thought so too. Then spent a couple of years 'setting them up' the right way (after many hours of listening).
One might think that (and some may even claim) there would be 'confusion' from the multiplicity of tweeters in a vertical array--AND one may point out, rightfully that 'comb-filter effects' are created by such--however, to my silly little ears, they sounded really remarkable and did not seem to have problems with this effect.
In fairness, there were 'supposed' technologies in place to ameliorate such issues, but I've never been able to gleen what those technologies might have been.
I only knew the Pipedreams to have been very dynamic and impressive, and to have had wonderful presence.
(Read Johnathan Valin's raves for a reference point).
There are many ways to achieve Nirvana, I suppose...so I'm, at this late stage of my existance, unable to say emperically which method of loudspeaker tech is 'better'.
Great question...and fodder for lots of interesting responses.
Best,
Larry