2. speakers
  3. 151982-11297

First order/Time Phase-Coherent speakers discussions

"The game is done! I’ve won! I’ve won!"


I would like to use this thread to talk about this subject which I find rather fascinating and somewhat difficult to get my hands on. I went through a course in electromagnetism in college and I have to say this is even more confusing and you won’t find the answer in calculus, physics, Einstein relativity be damned it’s not in there either and definitely not in quantum physics. Listening to the "experts" from Vandersteens and Stereophile but ultimately it all came down to a missing link sort of argument ... something like this:
"Since if a speaker can produce a step response correctly, therefore it is time-phase coherent, and therefore it must be "good".

It’s like saying humans come from chimps since they share 90% genetic content with us, but we can’t find any missing links or evidence. FYI, we share a lot of gene with the corn plants as well. Another argument I’ve heard from John Atkinson that lacks any supporting evidence and he said that if everything else being equal, time-phase coherence tends to produce a more coherent and superior soundstage, but to the best of my knowledge, nobody has been able to produce some semblance of evidence since there is no way to compare apples to apples. Speaker "A" may have better soundstage simply because it’s a BETTER design, and the claim "time-phase coherent" is just a red herring. There’s no way one can say the "goodness" from "time-phase coherence" because you can’t compare apples to apples. Ultimately it’s a subjective quantification.

I’ve been doing some simulation and I will post some of my findings with graphs, plots, actual simulation runs so that we are discussing on subjective personal opinions. Some of my findings actually shows that intentionally making time-phase may result in inferior phase problem and NOT better! (will be discussed more in detail).

Having said all that, I am actually in favor of first order/time-phase coherent if POSSIBLE. I am not in favor of time-phase coherence just for the sake of it. It’s just that there are a lot of mis-information out there that hopefully this will clear those out. Well hopefully ...

Here my preliminary outline:

1. My "subjective" impression of what is "musicality" and how it’s related to first order filters.
2. Interpretation of step-response. I’ve read a lot of online writing with regard to the interpretations but I think a lot of them are wrong. A proper interpretation is presented with graphs and simulations.
3. A simulation of an 1st order and higher order filters with ideal drivers and why time-phase coherence is only possible with 1st order filter. This part will use ideal drivers. The next part will use real world drivers.
4. A simulation with actual drivers and how to design a 1st order/time phase coherent speaker. Discuss pros and cons. And why time-phase coherence may actually have phase issues.
5. Discuss real world examples of time-phase coherence with Thiel’s and Vandersteens speakers (and why I suspect they may not ultimately be time-phase coherent in the strictest sense).
6. I’ll think of something real to say here ... :-)
andy2
timlub
2,039 posts
 
you really have a lot of homework left.... you can't figure phasing without understanding the drivers being used and how slopes and parts will affect phasing.... it has not been mentioned, but remember there is acoustic phasing as you have been discussing,  but there is also electrical phase. The rare time that I see that mentioned here on Agon is when discussing using tubed amplifiers,  but individual drivers can vary phase when you change crossover points or slopes or even part grades when it comes to coils.  Most of you have probably seen on occasion a tweeter or midrange is wired out of phase or reversed positive and negative.  This is done on purpose when phasing gets too far out of whack to bring it back in line.  On paper only,  at 6db per octave,  a driver goes 90 degrees out of phase,  12 db goes 180 degrees (which is when you reverse terminals), 18 db goes 270 degrees and 24 db come full around 360 degrees.  In real practice most of the time, these numbers are not near accurate.  So 6/6 slopes can get you close in phasing,  but why did Joe Di'Apolitto  use 18 db slopes in his mtm designs.... harder slopes often sound better,  they roll off any bumps in a drivers frequency response and they give the same type (in reverse) phasing as 1st order slopes.  
I have seen a ton of discussion in this forum about why 1st order slopes, but it is a rare few that understand why and how the drivers combined with crossovers affect phase and even time alignment.  
ivan_nosnibor's avatar
ivan_nosnibor
1,047 posts
 
@timlub +1

"With a active crossover, time/phase alignment becomes relatively easy."

Agreed, and as someone who has those, if their frequency selection allows any choice from 20-20k which mine do, then it's a simple matter for me to just think up a combination of frequency selection vs slopes to play around with various drivers and compare the results on the fly from the lp.

Does 1rst order have advantages? Sure. But they have disadvantages, too, like all the other slopes. I've experimented from 1rst to 5th order (LWR, Bttrwth) and can tell you easily that, for sound's sake, I would never start with a crossover design and try to pin it onto a pair of drivers. I'd have to start with the real-world drivers and come up with the right crossover. I'd certainly consider what the crossover might look like when choosing drivers, but that's only all the more reason to give the driver selection the most consideration from the start. But, 1rst order behavior advantages are not the only consideration to good overall design.

But, with active digital crossovers, there's no need to spend all that time reading all the tea leaves (white papers, testimonials, reams of MLSSA charts, searching for who could be the most unimpeachable source of info on it, etc) in an attempt to get a handle on comparing them all from afar and then try to divine which might be best. With digital actives, you just dial it up and listen for yourself...a whole lot easier and faster that way.

What I can tell from that is, yeah, 1rst order can be nice, but it's not the holy grail. The holy grail is a well orchestrated and executed speaker design overall...not just one or two aspects.
timlub
2,039 posts
 
Properly done active should always be better
atdavid
736 posts
 
There is still some or even a lot of reading on digital if you want to start pushing the limits / doing custom FIR filters, etc. 
andy2 OP
1,534 posts
 
it has not been mentioned, but remember there is acoustic phasing as you have been discussing
It’s so obvious I didn’t to waste people time like you just did.

Properly done active should always be better
You have no idea. Talk is cheap lols. Want to pack the entire lab into your speakers?

There is still some or even a lot of reading on digital if you want to start pushing the limits / doing custom FIR filters, etc.
Digital is for low end stuffs. High end and expensive stuffs are pure analog. Consider it a lesson.

With digital actives, you just dial it up and listen for yourself...a whole lot easier and faster that way.
When someone claims something is "a whole lot easy", I go like "hello, what has he done?"

More to discover