2. speakers
  3. 1115259466

Phase Coherence or Time Alignment: Which More Imp?

This thread is really a follow on from a prior one that I let lapse. Thanks to everyone who contributed and helped me to better understand the importance of crossover design in building a loudspeaker. What I gathered from the last thread that there are opposing camps with different philosophies in crossover design. Leaving aside for a moment those that champion steep slope designs, my question is for those who have experience with speakers that are time aligned and/or phase coherent (using 1st order 6db per octave crossovers). Which is more important, phase coherence or time alignment? In other words, which more strongly influences the sound and performance of a loudspeaker? The reason I ask is because of the four speaker lines currently on my shortlist of floorstanders, three are either phase coherent or time aligned or both. The Wilson Benesch Curve's/ACT's and the Fried Studio 7 use 1st order crossovers but do not time align the drivers through the use of a slanted baffle. The Vandersteen 5's and the Quatro's both time align the drivers and use 1st order crossovers. I guess what I am asking is do you need to do both or is the real benefit in the crossover design? I'd appreciate your views.
BTW the other speaker is the Proac D25 and D38
128x128dodgealum
zkzpb8
212 posts
 
Jeff Joseph seems like a very good guy, he gave a nice presentation in New York last week. Yes, with his speakers' performance he finds himself in good company, but only through a time coherent speaker can one accomplish the acoustic output as a duplicate of its electrical input. The infinite slope cannot maintain the acoustic waveform.

Richard Vandersteen though that I'm more sensitive to time domain shifts than most people. Not that I have golden ears, but it's just where my sensitivies lie. For other listeners, higher order cross-overs may be perfect for them - so yes, there is more than one way to skin a cat.
bigtee
803 posts
 
I have no doubt Jeff Joseph is a good designer based on his beliefs and having never met the man, I'll take your word that he is a good fellow(which I'm sure he is.) However, I'm of the camp that there is only one way to skin a cat. These two designs are too far apart for even a sorta right pick between them. Sorry, this falls into a more right or wrong area. Otherwise, it forms a who cares theory (which is probably a good one since most will pick what sounds best to them no matter what the design.)
My opinion certainly doesn't invalidate anyone else's choice. I'm sure these speakers have a loyal following just as most other brands. They just weren't for me.
zkzpb8
212 posts
 
I've tried to like the sound of Joseph speakers, but I don't think I ever will. It seems a lot of other listeners think they're great, so yes, it's possible to design a time in-coherent speaker and still have an audience. Personally I stand behind time coherent design. A lot of the (expensive) speakers that I heard at the show in New York last week struck me as designs that were made by music lovers who never actually go out and listen to live music. I've always found time coherent designs to be all about music, and not hi-fi.
dodgealum's avatar
dodgealum OP
1,406 posts
 
I have to agree with Zkzpb8. Overall I thought the sound at the show was pretty bad. I can only think of one or two rooms where I was really enjoying what was going on and the Vandy room by Audio Connection was, IMHO, clearly the best. Most of what I heard elsewhere was crappy audiophile stuff--you know, "great" recordings of bad music and sound effects. Far too many "demonstrations" and far too few folks who actually seemed to like music. In the Audio Connection suite they played all kind of stuff and, to my ear, it all sounded great. It's funny, I've been looking and listening to speakers for about a year now and have boiled my search down to 4 models--three of which are phase coherent designs. I may be one of those who is also sensitive to phase and time relationships. I donno.
skrivis
30 posts
 
"I have noticed the positive recommendations you are receiving here and other places on your speakers. With the apparent unfortunate situation with Meadowlark, it looks like you, Richard V. and Thiel must carry the load. "

There are others. Karl Schuemann is working on phase-correct designs, and then there are a couple of people or groups of people carrying on Bud Fried's work.

In addition, I wouldn't count Pat McGinty out just yet. :-)
More to discover