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
@bdp24 , Thankx, I'll go stare @ that....and ignore what I don't think applies. *L*

I do that.... ;)
Walshs' are Not Normal....

I've been accused of that...but it works for me.  Thinking 'outside the box' is easy when you don't believe the box really exists... ;)
...and @andy2 has a 'poetic interlude'....*G*

Lets' drift 'off topic' for a moment....*S*  Good for the soul, tics everyone else off...*L*
Even if you have perfect pistonic motion, you still have intermodulation distortion with a pistonic driver. It is unavoidable.
@atdavid...yup, there's the points where the driven surface has to slow down, stop, and accelerate in the opposite direction.  'X' x per second, constantly varying....
I'd get distorted too, which occurs with far simpler motions.*L*
There's various 'this 'n that' applied to compensate, but none make it 'go away' completely.
The above is why a Walsh radiator appeals to me.  Pistonic motion is primarily converted into a radial radiation at the voice coil/cone interface.
It doesn't 'go pistonic' until the waveforms descend further down the cone, where the diameter of the cone is less likely to radial excitation of the surrounding air...
Think of a bell...stuck, it vibrates radially.  In this instance, the cone needs to be light but physically stiff to endure the induced waveforms. That requires a driver that is under a considerable amount of resistance.  Which translates into heat...which will fry most voice coils.
I've lost a couple that way...a finger on the magnets' backside gets hot to the touch.
That's one thing that I've worked to address, as well as the cone materials, cone interior reflections, surround material selection, et all...
Even the choice of structural material is not typical; stiff, yet absorptive.

There are those that consider omni's 'non-starters', but consider the nature of 'live music'.  It doesn't exist as a sound from a plane; it's omni by nature, as you are.  You hear from all around you, reflections and all.
Crossovers don't exist either...*s*
Yes, omni's are a bitch to set up in a given space. *shrug*  But, given that many spend big $ to 'condition' their listening environment, what's the diff?
I'm a fan of Linkwitzs' comment: "Ignore the room."
Which is why I approach the issue by 'going 5.1', a surround array with a sub.
Direct overrules reflections when you're in the midst...;)