Why not horns?

Weseixas - I can't see much value in your opinions. Sorry.

Audio Asylum seems more like an appropriate format for your debating technique. That 30 years in the audio biz has taught you to view the majority of high end audio with an informed cynicism but your "shout louder" approach to discussion keeps me from taking you very seriously.

Ralph wrote: "If you cannot get the [dipole] speaker far enough from the rear wall, the first comment [that dipoles create the required space and time of a recording more accurately than monopoles] is moot. Duke has built systems that are rear-firing and they seem to work fine..."

Weseixas replied: "Atmasphere... You are comparing a monopole to a dipole, they cannot sound alike or have the same presentation and never will... Spare me the condescension of telling me about Duke's speakers, been there done that and a ball of wax..."

Duke chimes in: I think Ralph was saying that if your dipoles are not far enough out into the room, the advantage of dipole radiation is lost. And I agree; in fact, I usually advise people who can't place speakers at least 3.5 feet out into the room to get monopoles instead. Without sufficient time-lag in between the first arrival sound and the arrival of the backwave energy, that strong early reflection is more likely to be a net detriment.

I think Ralph referred to my bipolar horn-type speakers because they are an example of a horn speaker that has radiation characteristics similar to a dipole, and as a result when set up like a dipole, they tend to sound a lot like a dipole. These comments by an Audiogoner who has owned some rather nice dipole and omni speakers (as you will see) backs up this claim.

Weseixas again: "Anyone who says a good planer sounds like a horn or vis a vie has never heard a good planer setup."

What a good horn system and a good planar system have in common is this: They both generate a reverberant field that is spectrally correct (something few cone-n-dome systems accomplish). The relative level of that reverberant field different: With a correctly-setup planar, the reverberant field is considerably stronger relative to the first-arrival sound than for a monopole horn system. One could liken this to sitting in Row 15 versus Row 3. (A good omni is usually more like Row 25.)

Weseixas, your "been there done that" remark about my speakers implies that you've heard them. Which ones, and where, if you don't mind my asking?

Thanks,

Duke

Macrojack ,

Really !,,,,

Maybe you should review the personal retorts and shout louder approach by you and your "friends" before labeling me with such i notice none has labeled you absurd when stating this !

With a frequency response of 300 Hz. up to 14 Khz. from a single distortionless driver, Macrojack

Ahhh , such is life !!!!

Hello Duke,

With all do respect , for Ralph to insert distance to back wall would be like me inserting some absurd requirement for listening to a horn,speaker...

We are discussing things and ideas in absolute terms, Ralph knows better than that! I thought this was an discussion about the merits and demerits of Horn speakers , apparently not , i suppose ?

In regards to Dipoles 3.5 is 2 close IMO. My rule of thumb at least the speaker height from the rear wall or 5 feet min and I'm sure you are not comparing your bi-polar speaker polar plot to that of a Di-pole with it's figure 8 pattern ?....

I highly doubt the 2 will sound the same, the sonic characteristics are so completely different...

Regards,

I would like to clarify !

I highly doubt the 2 will sound the same, the sonic characteristics are so completely different... that's not to say it would not sound the same to someone else!

Anathema and euphoria thingy again !