Consider the source. Why should anyone give credibility to a statement like this in Playboy?
40 responses Add your response
Dunlavy, out of business also made speakers meeting this criteria, and Green Mountain Audio continues to make speakers with first order crossovers, and in their Continuum series also physical adjustment of the mid-range and tweeter with respect to the woofer to assure a time coherent wavefront at the particular listening positom for each room.
I believe that is the view of "The Audio Perfectionist":
Given that a lot of what The Audio Perfectionist recommends seems to work for me, I wouldn't doubt this statement.
Perhaps other speaker manufactures may not consider time coherence necessary, desirable, or worth the trouble.
There are a few more manufacturers but these are the BIG players. All three have been around for a long time and have never wavered on their philosophies. I for one am in their camp. I too believe that these parameters are important and someday when better testing becomes available, it will be proven to be important since that appears to be a must in this world today---proof! Funny how people pick their truths.
Everyone is entitled to their opinion and as the fellow stated above, everyone has one. Just look at any one requesting any speaker information and how many suggestions you get.
I do find it interesting that some of the main stream electronics folks use Vandersteen. Not because they think it is the best speaker on the planet but because it lets them hear what is actually there. Also, the engineers from some of these companies use the same speakers. A short list includes Audioquest, Steve McCormack, Ayre and Aesthetix to name a few off the top of my head.
There are a lot of proven inaccurate speakers out there that people use and that's fine. If they like them more power to them.
I always thought "High end" audio was interested in improving the art and some of this stuff is a giant step backwards(even on a test bench.) The term "High end" is overused just like "High efficiency" on a 10 Seer AC unit. It is all marketing BS and about the dollar.
I have been at this for 37 years and watched the "Hits" of the day come and go. There is only so much that can be done with designs and I genuinely think manufacturers screw it up so that can lay claim to a different sound. Honest improvements do not jump out of the woodwork every year! Most people will steer away from the accurate system because it isn't exciting. We ARE accustomed to certain inaccuracies that most find pleasing.
As for Playboy, yeh, they listed the 3 "Major" players but they need to stick to what they do best.
Also, for the fellow that mentioned JM Labs, why would they make one speaker correct in these parameters and no others?
I personally think we would all be better off if we get our heads out of magazines and educate ourselves.
The older Dahlquist speakers of the 70's were an early attempt at time alignment only. They are not and never were phase correct. Even Vandersteen's earliest Model 2's in the 70's were not time and phase correct. Vandersteen, a few years later, introduced phase and time correct speakers of a sort.
I truly believe that current manufacturers today use their argument against time and phase speakers because it would drastically raise the price of their product and hurt their bottom line. I also think it would be too expensive to R&D this design for market. Also, Vandersteen holds patents on his specially designed drivers. It takes years to refine designs.
Not really sure why Playboy is engendering so much animosity here.
Personally, I'm glad they are sticking their nose into speakers. Hopefully, they will reciprocate in kind and let me go noodling around in their business. I got more than a few ideas on having some of their buxom beauties respledent in all of their glory in front of me.
Last week I read a review on the Meadowlark BH2's. The reviewer stated one day speakers won't be considered "audiophile" material unless they're time aligned and phase coherent. That may or may not be the case as only time can tell, but I've talked to (Roy Johnson- GMA) and read enough material on this subject to believe in the physics that support the theory.
I have two fundamental concerns with this theory.
1. Room environment - most people do not have a dedicated listening rooms that can take full advantage of this design. If I understand the principle correctly, this design is especially sensitive to room configurations and furniture arrangement. Place a coffee table, chair or couch near the pathway of its soundwave and time alignment goes out the window. From what I can tell - triangulation is the name of this game. In other words, the specific relationship between the positioning of ones ears to the placement/position of the drivers. By the same token, I think most speaker designs will be adversely affected by furniture and other room treatment peculiarities, so this is not unique.
2. Small sweet spot - Gallos and MBL's these are not.
And then again... I could be totally wrong, which won't be the first.
Just when Playboy is becoming more and more irrelevant and selling fewer copies, they start talking about real hi-fi. But even with their "deminished capacity" they sell a hell of alot more copies than S'phile and A' Sound combined. So maybe some day high end will become more mainstream? Don't hold your breath.
By the way I've heard quite a few Vandys and Thiels and they could not be at much more of two ends of an axis.
Great responses here and though I am a devoted Thiel fan and owner (CS6s), I also compose and record music in a home studio environment. I have asked Jim Thiel about this too: Hey folks, it matters not a rat's *ss if the production of the recording itself was MONITORED and MIXED on non-time coherent, non-phase coherent MONITORS. Just think, if the engineer is mixing and mastering so as to eliminate or reduce phase shift cancellations by ear, well if the speakers being used to actually do this don't have those features, then how the heck is the MUSIC ever gonna be time and phase correct IN THE RECORDING AND HENCE THE PLAYBACK up to the point of coming out of our speakers????
Jim/Shari/Kathy at Thiel couldn't even tell me studios they know that use phase and time coherent designs to PRODUCE music, so go figure.
My point here is that unless all music is recorded, monitored and mixed on phase and time coherent designs, then we will never benefit from what such designs can deliver.
It's just one of those situations in life that makes me think so much of our energy in listening and enjoyment just gets so bogged down in chit chat (even though it's fun once in a while!)
Stevecham, not to start an argument but I think this misses the point. The idea of time and phase speakers is to allow a recording and its cues to be reproduced for better or for worse, in phase or out phase. Time aligned speakers as REPRODUCERS, in my opinion, are better at giving a more accurate presentation of the recording event no matter how it was recorded(which is not the issue.) If you use non time and phase speakers, then they are going to mess up a mess even more in reproduction of the original phase and time mess.
Maybe if recording studios paid more attention to these parameters, a lot of our CD complaints would go away. I think a lot of CD's inherent problems IS due to phase issues. One of the reasons people like analogue is there are NO phase problems with the reproduction of this source. The stylus stays in phase with the reproduction of the grooves.
CD players alter phase relationships and if the source is all out, then we compound the problem.
Just my opinion for what it's worth. Go back and search time and phase discussions. This has all been hashed out before.
Bigtee, no argument, your points are well delivered and taken and agree with you from the premise that we must do no more harm than is already done. And that is particularly why I most often find myself playing vinyl from recordings that were kept in the AAA domain. I think it would be great if there were such a label that recorded, monitored and mixed with T&P accurate equipment just so that we would be able to hear once and for all, if keeping things strictly in this mode provides the resolution and accuracy we seek.
It sure would be nice. I wanted to add one last thing. Back a few years ago, B&W did do a recording that corrected time and phase and played it back over their speakers for a blind test to see if it mattered. When the results were tabulated, it was shown, that without fail, that the corrected version was detected almost 100% and was listed as the better recording. Makes you think.