"When you tire of chasing your tail with MC, as you no doubt will, you will return to technology appropriate to the task."
Phil you assume so much, how do you know you're not chasing your tail right now? It took you 53 years to find the right speakers? Why haven't you checked out speakers like Tannoy and Cabasse, all of which adhere to your ideals? Tannoy has made a speaker like yours for decades! Why not a Manger Zerobox 109 which can be setup to play from 200hz to 40khz with no crossover? I would think you might have explored some of these options. But you were going to buy a Sonus Faber?
"No, Cdw, you're missing my point. Taking one accurate driver and adding another is revealing the error between them. Then do it again, and again, and again, and you begin to have slightly distinct voices. Clarity and tone are the casualties. There are no two exactly matched drivers. This is just one of the many problems with line-source loudspeakers, even in 2C."
So you prove this point to us all by purchasing speakers that has no less than 7 drivers on them each? Ok, so this aspect may not be SO important after all. And competent surround processors are quite capable of perfectly aligning the speakers, that's why there are some processors you shouldn't buy. I believe You waaaaay over state your abilities to hear differences between two drivers and overlook the transitions a single driver goes through making its own sound. A full range cone driver will likely have greater variation in tone than three seperate elements.
some Single cone problems;
1. Uneven frequency response= less Fidelity
2. The transition from 4pi to 2pi, makes the driver sound as different as two drivers and destroys tone
3. Modulation of high frequencies due to low frequency content. destroys tone and fidelity
These are just a few of the reasons most speaker designers put two to three drivers in their systems anyway. If one driver is going to sound different across its frequency band why not use two , each optimized for its bandwidth. They call it the lesser of two evils I think. This ability to hear the lack of holistic sound in multi-driver systems is all in your head as you have proven by your actions.
"Nothing on the market sounds like a Zu speaker. Honestly. Whether you like them or not, Zu speakers are their own thing."
Yes I agree. That Includes what's on the recording.
"There'd be software processing attempting to ham-handedly simulate much more complex wave behavior than the processor and speaker array would be up to."
I'm sure Jim Fosgate and Bob Stuart disagree and You have little or no idea how modern surround works and the current complexity of processing and accuracy of the algorithms. Two channel directly interferes with natural wave propagation, it is an unfortunate tone destroying side effect. That is why you still use triodes and if not those an autoformer McIntosh which dull the leading edge that is so harsh on a simple two channel system. Your whole system right down to your Denon cartridge addresses and diffuses and dulls the inherent high frequency issues in two channel. Unwittingly you have showed your hand, by doing everything you can to diffuse and soften the highs of your system. As the sources and electronics continue to improve, using only two speakers becomes the obvious liability. One day you will figure that out. In the end Phil you don't have to worry about me having the tone and fidelity in my system. You are too inconsistent to be the arbitor of tone and fidelity and if you took a second to refresh yourself you would see how incorrect these following statements sound to someone like me when we consider all that you have said and further more your actions;
"Effects, breakdown analysis, picayune critique of details. I find fewer and fewer people listening holistically or even able to comprehend what I mean by that."
(That's because you don't define it very well, because you say one thing and do another.)
"Yes, Cdw, every speaker that uses massed drivers has the same problem I outlined. It only gets worse with many speakers, and is containable with just two." "Yes, my speaker is better for a lot of reasons," "And yes, sometime you will hear what I'm talking about -- that good drivers massed draw attention to what is not matched." (and buy those speakers anyway :) "No, I haven't yet found you can add multiple drivers and achieve intended tone if the drivers are accurate. No two drivers are fully matched. Just close. Having more just makes the inconsistencies more audible and disruptive to fidelity." (so I should buy a speaker with 7 drivers each?) Magic Chipmunk No. 7!
"But that will sometime change and you'll begin paying attention to what your ears already know, that your brain has yet to assimilate. Patience." (The brain knows we hear in a primarily 360 degrees field, what more is there to know?)
"How's that done? With inventive combinations of resistors, capacitors, chokes, inductors"
(The rest of us call that an equalizer, I can't believe you have an equalizer built into your 1920 amplifiers, that's so cool! is it 5 band or 3 band?) .....doesn't that hurt "tone"?
"I don't have circa 1920 SET amps. And my speakers are phase-coherent. (proof please) I bet we can find that circuit in an old navy manual. "Monaural can have terrific tone", ( but a center channel in a system can't)
"heck let's give the MC guy 50% more! -- and 2C wins on fidelity, tone, less "unreality."" (sounds like wager time!)
"Well-made stereo works with human spatial perception in a way mono nearly completely lacks." (and 2ch mostly lacks)
Well Phil we are at an impasse, but you need to get your story straight. Because you tell me one thing and then we have to make an exception for your equipment and your choices. You don't follow what you say is true. So you discredit yourself, which is why I am confused at times.
