2. speakers
  3. 1274537281

Why not horns?

I've owned a lot of speakers over the years but I have never experienced anything like the midrange reproduction from my horns. With a frequency response of 300 Hz. up to 14 Khz. from a single distortionless driver, it seems like a no-brainer that everyone would want this performance. Why don't you use horns?
macrojack
unsound
7,344 posts
 
Again, I'm not the one making the claims.
macrojack OP
1,303 posts
 
I wonder if John Bau gave this matter any thought when he created the Spica TC-50? When was that, like 1982?
mapman's avatar
mapman
22,721 posts
 
"Again, I'm not the one making the claims"

No, but you are questioning them. All vendors make claims. If you have questions, you should ask and get the answers.

I believe the claims to be true based on what I know of the design and what I hear. But that does not prove anything especially to a skeptic now does it?
prdprez
121 posts
 
Macrojack,
Those TC-50s are notorious for showing up in any discussion of time coherence. They've become practically an iconic item in the discussion.
Because they used a first order filter on the mid/woofer driver and had that distinctive slanted baffle it is often assumed that they were time coherent.
Stereophile measured the speaker before they obtained the MLSSA system so some of the measurements related to time were not available.
However, it has since been shown that they are not time coherent. It is estimated that they sounded so damn good because the primary driver handling the midrange was using a first order filter and therefor had a very nice impulse response, which the old stereophile measurements DO show.

Cheers!
prdprez
121 posts
 
Unsound, ALL time coherent designers think/thought this. Vandersteen, Thiel, Johnson, etc.
It is the single measurement that most distinctly shows the output signal as it relates to time. And timing was the paramount issue for all of these guys.
More to discover