Flat earther?

loudspeaker design is always a selection of compromises.

The least possible crossover is of course no crossover at all. A way to avoid box colouration is to go open baffle.

This has as many advantages and disadvantages to me as a multi way speaker with a necessarily more complex crossover.

Its good I feel to keep an open mind and enjoy music from various types of system.

I enjoy ribbons, horns, electrostatic speakers, paper cones, simple speakers such as lowthers and big Wilson speakers.

It's all enjoyable, and there is no one way, truth or light.

To the chap who enjoys Naim - this is great. Even better if he has come to that having heard other products on the marketplace, removing any doubt about what he enjoys. Good for you.


On the subject of PRaT. It's 2010, the internet makes the consumer informed. Good shops stocking Naim/Linn now that I know also stock 'round' earth products too. Choice is a wonderful thing.

Have a good weekend all.
 
bottleneck said:
loudspeaker design is always a selection of compromises.
Click to expand...
If this is a reply my preceding post, I think the subject was NAIM amplifiers and not speakers (but I cannot be sure).

bottleneck said:
On the subject of PRaT. It's 2010, the internet makes the consumer informed.
Click to expand...
Well, I am certainly trying to use the internet to inform myself about the meaning of flat earth/PRaT but I am not sure that the general statement holds. The little I have seen on the subject suggests that the greater control the internet offers is generally used to narrow the sources of information rather than widen.
 
h.g. said:
I think "of what" may have some relevance.


You would consider it advisable to audition a Naim in order to make up my mind?
Click to expand...

We can discuss what is and isn't PR&T all day long on these forums and you wouldn't really be 100% sure if what you read was correct. However, one ten minute comparison at a dealers with Naim vs a piece of gear which compromises PR&T moreso and you'll know for sure.

Just an idea...

regards,

dave
 
h.g. said:
If this is a reply my preceding post, I think the subject was NAIM amplifiers and not speakers (but I cannot be sure).


Well, I am certainly trying to use the internet to inform myself about the meaning of flat earth/PRaT but I am not sure that the general statement holds. The little I have seen on the subject suggests that the greater control the internet offers is generally used to narrow the sources of information rather than widen.
Click to expand...

The easiest, though admittedly the most extreme way of finding out for yourself what typifies flat and round earth is try two of the speakers I've been discussing with Richard.
Spend a few hours listening to a Mk1 Kan, correctly placed on their stands against a solid rear wall. Then swap to a pair of LS3/5a using the same music, again with them optimally placed.

All will become crystal clear.
 
Richard Dunn said:
Because that is what you are used to, it is what you look for, it is a form of brainwashing which shows in your attachment to the concept.

PRaT probably represents maybe 10 to 20% of what music is all about and yet for you it is primary, that should at the very least make you think about your position and maybe do a bout of self de-programming. The first step is an acceptance of that you *may* be wrong.
Click to expand...

Richard,

You rank PR&T far higher than I do @ 10 to 20% percent. I give it 1% if that. I base my decision solely on whether I like what I hear and do I wish to continue playing CDs or LPs vs do something else like watch TV, etc.

And, yes, I'm strongly biased here like most folks.

regards,

dave
 
Dave Simpson said:
Richard,

You rank PR&T far higher than I do @ 10 to 20% percent. I give it 1% if that. I base my decision solely on whether I like what I hear and do I wish to continue playing CDs or LPs vs do something else like watch TV, etc.

And, yes, I'm strongly biased here like most folks.

regards,

dave
Click to expand...

Bias towards speakers is a funny thing.
Because the differences are often so gross they are the one item in the audio chain where i don't advise quick A/B dems, sighted or blind.

Listen to the original Kan for a couple of days and the ear partially compensates for the gross response errors. it doesn't compensate completely - honky voices still sound that way, and bits of the mix that are pushed forward or pulled back are still there, but the ear becomes more accepting of the overall balance.
Suddenly substitute a speaker without such gross characteristics and it immediately sounds very wrong - usually dull, bland and lacking dynamics.
The same happens in reverse.

All nominally accurate (in terms of and balance) loudspeakers sound dull and wrong initially when coming from a brightly lit and MSG infused loudspeaker.

So it takes a little time to adjust and get the drug out of the system.
 
Can't we have both worlds? Surely there is a system that does give sound stage and prat. Can anybody suggest a make or combo?

Jim.
 
Richard Dunn said:
Well personally I still don't like them, they are still too complicated for me. Any filter is a compromise whether mechanical or electrical of either passive or active variety.

All filters kill music, so do without as many as you can.
Click to expand...


I agree. That's why ES14s are so superb in all ways.
 
RobHolt said:
Bias towards speakers is a funny thing.
Because the differences are often so gross they are the one item in the audio chain where i don't advise quick A/B dems, sighted or blind.

Listen to the original Kan for a couple of days and the ear partially compensates for the gross response errors. it doesn't compensate completely - honky voices still sound that way, and bits of the mix that are pushed forward or pulled back are still there, but the ear becomes more accepting of the overall balance.
Suddenly substitute a speaker without such gross characteristics and it immediately sounds very wrong - usually dull, bland and lacking dynamics.
The same happens in reverse.

All nominally accurate (in terms of and balance) loudspeakers sound dull and wrong initially when coming from a brightly lit and MSG infused loudspeaker.

So it takes a little time to adjust and get the drug out of the system.
Click to expand...

I've done what you're suggesting countless times while working in hifi shops. The problem is the speaker lacking "MSG" still sounds boring, wrong and mechanical a week or a year later and often when compared to other non-Flat Earth designs.

The Kan's B110 does sound a bit honky and forward in presentation but much is due to room acoustics, system setup issues and a dislike of forward sounding speakers IMO.

One of the best dems I've heard of the Kan which left all traces of honkiness behind were a pair setup by Linn using an LP-12 w/Ittok and K9(!), Karik/Numerik, Kairn and single LK100. The room was 25' X 25' with 16' ceilings and furnished as normally as a room of that size could be. It was one of the most natural and amazing hifis I've heard. I walked out late that afternoon shaking my head and planning how I'd make the transition to digital.

For those about to chime in with the usual rot, there was absolutely no head nodding, prompting, discussion, suggestion or admission by Linn or the dealership on what was heard by anyone or their opinion of their digital vs analogue front-ends. This included direct questions fired at Linn ("no comment" was all anyone received.)

regards,

dave
 
flatpopely said:
I agree. That's why ES14s are so superb in all ways.
Click to expand...

They are, but not all is quite as it seems.

Instead of running the bass driver via the usual inductor, the bass driver itself is highly inductive (they are all inductive) so you have a 1st order passive filter just the same - you just have all of the required inductance inside the driver motor instead of of providing some of it via an external component. The actual filter behaviour is the same.

People often describe them as having no crossover on the bass/mid, which is quite wrong.

I wouldn't in any way regard them as a typical flat earth speaker though. They are a well balanced, non-extreme design.

Jimbo said:
Can't we have both worlds? Surely there is a system that does give sound stage and prat. Can anybody suggest a make or combo?

Jim.
Click to expand...

Yes, lots exist IMO.
These days I think flat v round earth exists only on the margins and most people accept and expect a more balanced performance.
 
Dave Simpson said:
The Kan's B110 does sound a bit honky and forward in presentation but much is due to room acoustics, system setup issues and a dislike of forward sounding speakers IMO.
Click to expand...

Sorry Dave, but this is yet again looking for implausible reasons to 'cure' a quite obvious and understood vice, while ignoring the facts that are staring you in the face. The Kan has such a grossly distorted response that could do nothing but seriously corrupt tonality and vocal performance. No room or set-up can fundamentally alter this.
The much later Kan II was miles better, and surprise surprise all of the horrid response peaks had gone.
 
RobHolt said:
Sorry Dave, but this is yet again looking for implausible reasons for a quite obvious and understood vice, while ignoring the facts that are staring you in the face. The Kan has a grossly distorted response that could do nothing but seriously corrupt tonality and vocal performance.
Click to expand...

Rob,

I'm fully aware of the Kan's ability to corrupt the signal. I'm suggesting (for me) its negative traits are far less bothersome than the mechanical, dead and distant sounding competition regardless of tonal purity, soundstage focus, 3-D layering or honk suppression (in the case of BBC monitor derivatives using a B110.)

FWIW, I'm not a fan of Bextrene as cone material with the exception of transmission line termination. Even then, that doesn't always help;-)

regards,

dave

P.S. That dem would have been using Kan IIs - time period was during the introduction of the Karik/Numerick to the US market.

Kan 1s were more ragged and uneven as you say. I can't accurately describe differences between them any more since original Kans left my rig in the early eighties and series II probably '89
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Dave Simpson said:
Rob,

I'm fully aware of the Kan's ability to corrupt the signal. I'm suggesting (for me) its negative traits are far less bothersome than the mechanical, dead and distant sounding competition regardless of tonal purity, soundstage focus, 3-D layering or honk suppression (in the case of BBC monitor derivatives using a B110.)

FWIW, I'm not a fan of Bextrene as cone material with the exception of transmission line termination. Even then, that doesn't always help;-)

regards,

dave
Click to expand...

Well yes I agree and would also probably take a Kan- just - over a 3/5a but both are poor.
That's the point really!

Bextrene is fine when handled by real audio engineers, ie the like of Harwood and Hughes. I can Sub a bextrene coned Rogers Export for one channel of an ESL pair and get an amazing sonic match, with beautifully accurate mids.
Peter Walker thought the same and even said in later years that users should probably buy a bextrene Spendor BC1 over his ESL.
Just because Linn cannot build a speaker with bextrene, that doesn't make it a poor material.

P.S. That dem would have been using Kan IIs - time period was during the introduction of the Karik/Numerick to the US market.
Click to expand...

Ah, different to the first Kan in all but looks. Good speaker and yes a pair of those in a room with some bass lift can sound extremely good indeed.
 
LOL...I haven't found a bextrene driver used by anyone that I'm 100 percent sold on.

Mr. Walker's comments are interesting to say the least. I've yet to hear any electrostatic that sounded even remotely like a moving coil loudspeaker.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I've never heard any loudspeaker that I'm even 90% sold on!

All are bad compared to live sound, some are just worse than others :)
 
Agreed.

You've heard me comment before that I believe speakers are the most unimportant part of the chain as far as important, emotionally satisfying musical differences are concerned (quality vs quantity.)

Perhaps it's because they are (all) relatively crude and inefficient with converting electrical energy into sound waves? The only exceptions for me have been Stax electrostatic headphones and the Acoustat Monitor from the early eighties. Both turned my head despite their weaknesses.
 
Never got to try Acoustats though they have a superb reputation.
Maggies are on my list to try at home and i think I'd like them. Always sound good at dems.
 
The Monitors and the originals (model "X") are exceptional even though there's a trace of mylar sound when pushed as well as the inevitable break-up when the amps clipped. We always wondered what Strickland's 'direct drive" built-in tube amps might do with other loudspeakers though. Typically partnered with asstd LP-12's w/KMAL, 3009 and 707 arms, numerous cartridges and always a Stax headphone amp serving as the preamp. This was in the earliest days of the Sondek -before Linn realised it sounded different from other TTs. No setup manual and you could order it without plinth for broadcast console mounting.

I've only spent time with the largest Maggies (Tympany IVs?) and that was back in the early seventies. A neighbor's rig w/B&O table, cart, ARC SP3a pre and D300 power amp if memory serves. Fabulous sound even if coloured by today's standards.

Did you ever hear the Crown electrostatic or their built-like-a-tank reel-to-reel units? Unbelievable sound especially with something like Mark Levinson's or the Vanguard record label's R2R tapes of classical music.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Latest posts

Back
Top