Time coherence - how important and what speakers?

Phasecorrect-
If you use pink noise or MLS or swept sine waves (common for testing dispersion), most of what we see on the printout does not explain what we hear. Dispersion, as heard on music, depends on some very definite factors:
--the diameter of the driver (not so much its shape) vs. the wavelength.
--does that driver remain a rigid piston in its operating band? Most do not.
--how the reflections from the enclosure's front and sides, and reflections off the other drivers' surfaces smear transients.
--how the crossover disturbs those transients.

The real problem is that we listen to music. Look at a musical waveform on a `scope- what do you see? Do you see any sine waves, or square waves, or sharp, stand-alone impulses? No. You see an ever-changing wave "form" that has more dynamic range than the face of the scope can reveal. It REPRESENTS how the mic diaphragm moved in and out, and how our ear drum is supposed to.

The music we hear- all its tones, rhythmic interplays, harmonies, imaging- our minds interpret from that complex "wave envelope". It is this unpredictable envelope's shape that counts. When a designer focuses on the theoretical "sine wave" components only, then the shape of the envelope has become immaterial to him.

Except to the ear. Which is why time coherence, and lack of cabinet problems, and linear drivers, and fewer crappy crossover parts, and proper crossover points are all important. Those all affect dispersion AS HEARD ON MUSIC.

Phasecorrect- you asked, "if time/phase accuracy is indeed retained...why do all time/phase coherent speakers sound different?" Because they are basing their claims of accuracy upon flawed measurements. The measurements don't pick up on all that we hear.

Ever wonder why we can't often play poor recordings? Everyone blames the studios, but it's the speaker's time-domain problems that are further distorting that distortion, contributing to unlistenabilty. Test: play a poor recording on phase-coherent headphones (Grado, Stax, others) then play it on a high-order crossover speaker just as loud.

Music is about time as much as tone and loudness. If you only test for two out of three, you won't be designing- only shoving parts into a box.

Best,
Roy

Eldartford-
Have a look at this link- let it load all its photos-

http://melhuish.org/audio/response.htm

You'll see how bad many drivers are at impulse response. You'll see ringing- just count the time period for each "cycle"- the ring is 1/period. You will see corresponding ripples in the impedance curve for each of those rings, and also see cabinet/floor reflections arrive, depending on the test and the enclosure.

Best regards,
Roy

Roy...thanks for the response....maybe i should rephrase my question: "if a speaker is fundamentally accurate(time/phase domain)....and can even reproduce a square wave...does this mean it automatically sounds good? I understand that accuracy is a concern...but should it overide overall musical abilities? I have heard both poor examples(phase correct) and non that sounded amazing.....

Just because it can do a square wave does not guarantee it will sound excellent on music. A nice square-wave response does not reveal many other problems that affect what we hear. However, it is a GIANT step in the right direction.

Roy

Can a ported or transmission line design be truly time/phase coherent? For that matter can a dipole or bipole with their trailing backwave be time/phase coherent? I suppose the same question can be asked of omni-directional designs as well. Is a point source design mandatory? Are sealed boxes required? How important is amplitutde linear(ty?) to sucessfull speaker accuracy, especially with regard to the vacillating ability of power delivery by amplifiers and the speakers dependency upon them?