2. speakers
  3. 1115259466

Phase Coherence or Time Alignment: Which More Imp?

This thread is really a follow on from a prior one that I let lapse. Thanks to everyone who contributed and helped me to better understand the importance of crossover design in building a loudspeaker. What I gathered from the last thread that there are opposing camps with different philosophies in crossover design. Leaving aside for a moment those that champion steep slope designs, my question is for those who have experience with speakers that are time aligned and/or phase coherent (using 1st order 6db per octave crossovers). Which is more important, phase coherence or time alignment? In other words, which more strongly influences the sound and performance of a loudspeaker? The reason I ask is because of the four speaker lines currently on my shortlist of floorstanders, three are either phase coherent or time aligned or both. The Wilson Benesch Curve's/ACT's and the Fried Studio 7 use 1st order crossovers but do not time align the drivers through the use of a slanted baffle. The Vandersteen 5's and the Quatro's both time align the drivers and use 1st order crossovers. I guess what I am asking is do you need to do both or is the real benefit in the crossover design? I'd appreciate your views.
BTW the other speaker is the Proac D25 and D38
dodgealum
lrsky
1,118 posts
 
I happened to hear the Kimber crossover, in what I thought, was 'his' speaker(?), and it sounds like "no crossover at all", the ultimate compliment. Clean clear and without that 'too many crossover parts' haze, created by overzealous engineers who try too hard IMHO to 'shape' the sound.
Wow, it was great, Kudos to Ray once again!
lrsky
1,118 posts
 
Suits Me, one of YOUR most obvious and glaring errors, not only proven by my many conversations with him, but archival works available to anyone who wants to, or takes the time to, or has the ability to, understand them.
You wrote, as cut from the thread, and I will file it for future information about you and your business endeavors.

>After this and other long, fact filled threads on the topic, we still don't know that Fried did not and doesn't make time aligned speakers.
He believed in first order series crossovers.<

Guess we all make mistakes, yet most of us are more gracious about pointing them out to others than you.

I have really tried to remain civil with a person who has no interest in doing so. God I hate threads that break down into feces throwing like this, but really, how many times can one person apologize? Sorry G you were right this was headed for disaster with a guy like this....
theaudiotweak
2,769 posts
 
Larry look at the patent disclosure on the government site..Patent #6381334 owned by a Mr.Alexander from there in Utah..Crossover appears to me to be a Series type.First patent uses only inductors and resistors, no caps. Second patent by the same designer adds capacitors to add back energy... not to reduce or roll out energy. Series designers use the inductance of the drivers as well as other measurements to be an intregal part of their designs.The drivers themselves are a part of the crossover.Tom
lrsky
1,118 posts
 
The unit I heard, as I recall, did not have any caps, so it must have been an early version. I do remember the guy, Our tech, waxing over the crossover, talking about its absence of coloration, and again, IF I RECALL, caps.
It was, nevertheless, glorious in it's clear simplicity, as if nothing was between you and the music.
I remember hearing the Jura Rega, commenting on how it sounded, flaws notwithstanding, as if there was no crossover.
Thanks Tom.
theaudiotweak
2,769 posts
 
Larry there is a fellow down in Lexington that was designing speakers with first order series crossovers back in 1998 and his last name wasn't Thiel...Tom
More to discover