Line Sources - History ?
JPH-22 -- Sun, 01/25/2009 - 03:44
I've noticed over the years that line-source loudspeakers have virtually disappeared from the (North American) high-end stage. We have Martin-Logan, Sound Lab, Janszen (yes, there back) and Inner Sound for ESL-dipoles; Magnepan and Analysis for planar-magnetic dipoles; VMPS and Wisdom for "boxed" planar-magnetics and Selah, Scaena, AV123 and Audience for boxed dynamic lines. That's all I see. This is an astonishingly small number of co., being that there are at least 150 high-end speaker makers in the U.S. and Canada.
There aren't that many reviews, either. Harry Pearson seems to be the only reviewer who perennially has lines in his system. Robert Greene likes lines...but uses Harbeth monitors as his reference.
It looks like Peter Walker was right - humans can (seemingly) decode sound much easier when it's sourced from a point. And this should especially be obvious to those who are familiar with the sound of live music - which Mr. Walker undoubtedly was......
JPH
Sound Lab is most certainly still around, and their speakers' acoustical line source geometry is described on their website here.
Brian Walsh
Essential Audio ~ Chicago area ~ (773) 809-HIFI
Thanks for the info - I've updated my entry....
Could not disagree more vehemently with JPH. What seems most significant when one adds the Dali Megaline to the mix is the number of
line sources residing in the upper echelon of loudspeakers. The rate limiting step - with all due respect to the estimable Mr. Walker- is the
size and inherent cost of any line source product. That there are as many as there are given these limitations is a testament to the
physics.
I disagree with assessment that lines are more difficult to set up. This, because many lines today are dynamic arrays - not open panels like that of yesteryear. If anything, they are *easier* than point-sources to set-up due to their alleged immunity to floor and side-wall reflections.
It's a fact that there were many more lines - as a percentage of the high-end market - 20 years ago. They simply fell out of fashion. And this might not be an accident - research has shown that humans can decode sound better when it's sourced from a point. Hence all the preferred brands of this decade - 98% of them point-source.........
JPH
> research has shown that humans can decode sound better when it's sourced from a point
How about some proof of that assertion? Web links, please.
> Hence all the preferred brands of this decade - 98% of them point-source
Not true, if you consider that exceedingly few high performance loudspeakers employ full range single drivers.
Interaction with room acoustics plays an important role in a loudspeaker's performance. Care to speculate on which radiation geometry is more independent of room modes?
Brian Walsh
Essential Audio ~ Chicago area ~ (773) 809-HIFI
There is no "proof" of anything in audio. One guy cites one study - another guy, another study. For point-source wave launch, I'd start with Peter Walker. But I will not get into a tiff with people who are selling the very products and/or concepts I challenge.
The "proof" is in the listening - very few audiophiles prefer lines. Like I stated, Harry Pearson seems to be the only reviewer who has lines perennially in his system. Point-sources *are* about 98% of the market - in terms of what folks listen to. How many times has Sound Lab been reviewed, again ?
First you said, "research has shown that humans can decode sound better when it's sourced from a point."
I challenged that assertion, asking for facts. After all, the outcome of research are results and facts: technical findings. No, I'm not some AES type. I simply asked that you cite research to corroborate your assertion. The example of Peter Walker is a straw man argument.
Then you said, "There is no "proof" of anything in audio." Nonsense. An utterly baseless assertion.
"The "proof" is in the listening." More nonsense.
Where's the beef?
"Point-sources *are* about 98% of the market." That's simply not true. Perhaps an explanation of what a point source is is in order. A large percentage of loudspeakers sold use multiple moving coil cone/dome drivers, mainly mounted in box enclosures of various shapes, but the speakers as a whole, and that's what is under discussion, are not point sources. A speaker employing a Tannoy driver with a concentric tweeter mounted in the throat of the woofer could be considered a point source, but not a Wilson WATT, for example. A speaker with a single Lowther driver could be considered a point source.
Brian Walsh
Essential Audio ~ Chicago area ~ (773) 809-HIFI
Let's try it this way - 98% of high-end loudspeakers are *not line arrays*. They use 4, 5 and 6 in. midranges. Sometimes they use two of them M-T-M but this is still far from a wall-type (planar) or head-to-foot (dynamic array) wave launch. You foolishly think that any speaker with multiple drivers is a line-source. Wrong.
Maybe you cant' hear the difference...and if so, you would be in the minority - *extreme* minority.
As for studies - just like I predicted, you rejected the one source I gave. This means you'll do the same for other sources as well. I've been down this road before (with people like you) - no study will convince. So why should I waste my time digging for AES reports when you will reject them ?
I'll close with my repeating thought - there are hardly *any* reviews of line-source loudspeakers this decade - esp. the panel-type. Scan the online databases of Stereotimes, Soundstage, 6moons and Positive Feedback to see how dismal it is. The only (planar) ones we ever see are Martin-Logan, Magnepan and Inner Sound, which amount to less than 1% of the market.
Go got 'em one percent !!!!
.
> You foolishly think that any speaker with multiple drivers is a line-source. Wrong.
You're putting words in my mouth and hurling unprovoked insults. I'm done with you.
Brian Walsh
Essential Audio ~ Chicago area ~ (773) 809-HIFI
My review of JV's Best of CES 2009, in no particular order, are as follows:
Magico
Da Vinci
Wilson
Scaena
Vandersteen
Perfect 8 Technologies
MBL
Guess what -98% of these 7 loudspeakers are NOT Point sources
100% of them are expensive
100% of them are large
While 98% or a disproportionate % of all speakers manufactured may (?) be point sources- the remaining 2% that are line sources
occupy a disproportionate % of the upper echelon of loudspeakers- that 2% is overacheiving to say the least.
Point sources can be small and are cheaper to build
Not all point sources are large
Ever hear of a line source mini-monitor ?
But line sources are almost always large- and expensive to build and ship
Their mere size eliminates- guess what - 98% of potential buyers (low WAF, small rooms)
The cost eliminates 99.9% of buyers- so the .1% are doing very well in choosing and supporting line sources
and the 2% making them are in rarefied air of loudspeaker design and performance.
Finally JPH's main argument- besides the concocted alleged truism about point sources -is market share-
However, commonness of method or design is generally inversely proportional to quality - a fact actually supported by JPH's numbers.
"98% of people can more easily decode my hamburger by going through a drive through and geting it fast "- Ray Croc
Did you have your Big Mac today- 98% of the world did.
Method Champenoise vs. Charmat
etc etc, etc
Such silliness !!!
First off, I'm not talking about *JV's picks* at the show and you know it.
Next, would you please provide an example of a "line-source mini-monitor" .
Yes, lines are large. But so are many point-source speakers: big Sonus Faber's, Wilson, etc. - that if anything, are *heavier* than panel systems. And many points are expensive - look at those 90k Magico's (and Sonus Faber, Wilson, etc.)
Besides, we still have those dynamic lines which never caught fire. Remember Pipe Dreams ? They were purported to be some kind of cosmic advance in speaker design. HP even put them on the front cover of TAS pictured with an alien (Oct '98). l have not seen reviewers *anywhere* run out and put this (type) of speaker in their reference system.....
.
You keep answering the wrong argument to avoid supporting your inadequately supported argument about the superiority of point sources with the "research" - but not really research - attributed to peter walker and that all important and determinative indicator of quality and performance- "market share"
To analogize your points:
98% of speakers that are sold cost less than 5K - so speakers under 5K are better
and Amar Bose's "research" said so !! And if they are direct reflecting-better still.
The point about JV at CES was to show the # of non-point sources that are among the top ranks of speakers- a point that is irrefutable.
Of your 98% - at CES- the point sources were nowhere near 98% of his favorites- clearly the point sources were underperforming at CES 2009 given such huge numerical superiority- so maybe we should debate "whether JV can hear" as a corollary to your earliest point or debate "are point sources clearly inferior given the lower % of them among his CES favorites relative to their their superior numerical % of all CES exhibitors"
The elite non-point sources include:
Martin Logan
Sound Labs
MBL
Janzsen
Pipedreams
Scaena
Dali megaline- their top of the line and from a huge volume point source manufacturer
Wisdom
McIntosh
Magnepan
Perfect 8
Genesis 1
I am certain I am leaving some out -but so what -even if there was only one among the best- that still does not make your point.
PS- they are all expensive as hell and when one travels in the circle of EXPENSIVE State of the Art loudspeakers your 98% number is reduced to irrelevancy .
Numbers are not indicative of high performance or high technology or BOSE would be best - not just most popular.
The Pipedreams retort is similarly irrelevant as to the " proficiency" of the design or the physics involved.
That speaker- perhaps from a company now defunct- was rave reviewed as groundbreaking by HP, JV and others- it's financial viablity was likely unrelated to its performance and likely due more to its size, cost , management and the difficulty of gaining entree to dealers and distribution.
Now go buy a Lexus- because like Brian - No mas- I am out of here.
I won't miss you...
Pipedreams is still in business - now called Scaena. But JV has listened to mostly points since "Pipe" - Kharma, Rockport, MBL and now Magico - that's 9 long years. This further proves my point (pun) that reviewers *could* listen to lines but choose not to. You cannot excuse this on the grounds that lines are "expensive" and "large". Does these things affect *every* high-end reviewer ? There are hundreds - but only Harry Pearson has them in his system year-in and year-out. Others have had them...but then always move on to points.
Any quick scanning of very expensive loudspeakers reveals that my theory does *not* fall apart. Even +$50,000 designs are almost all point-sources, model for model, sorry to say........
.
> Pipedreams is still in business - now called Scaena.
Scaena
Pipedreams
Brian Walsh
Essential Audio ~ Chicago area ~ (773) 809-HIFI
I came in late on this argument, but to set the record straight the Magico M5s (or V2s or Minis), Wilson MAXX Series 3s, Vandersteen Model 7s, Da Vinci Virtus, and MBL 111Fs are point sources (because the MBL is an omni doesn't make it a line source). The Perfect8 Technologies The Force is a line source and so is the Scaena 3.2 (although I did not pick the Scaena or the MBL as one of the very best sounds I heard at CES 2009 so you could fairly say that five of my six top speakers at CES 2009--counting the Amphion Krypton 2s--were point sources). As for me preferring point sources to line sources...that isn't true, either. The Martin Logan CLX is one of the five or six best speakers I've heard in my home and it is a line source; I am also very high on Magneplanar planar-magnetic loudspeakers (particularly the 1.6QR and the 20.1), which are line sources, and Sound Lab electrostats, which are also line sources. I really don't have a horse in this race. Both line sources and point sources are capable of the realistic reproduction of music and arguing for the superiority of one or the other really amounts to declaring your preference for the distinctive virtues of one or the other. It is a fact that there are more point source loudspeakers than line source loudspeakers, although that is not an argument for the superiority of point sources.
JV:
I just brought up the fact that you've had points in your reference system for most of the last nine years. Yes, lines can be good...but in my view, points launch sound in a way that's closer to what we hear live. Lines have what I call "image distortion" - they create an artificial "wall" of sound that's distinct from live. They just don't have that image coherency that I find essential to long-term listening. Then, they're all short on dynamic range.
I simply coupled these observations with the fact that the vast majority of even super-speakers are point-sources. And reviewers seem to almost totally house points - outside an occasional Martin or Maggie-guy and of course, HP.
But thanks for jumping in.........
.
But planars also have very low-mass membrane drivers that are charged uniformly over their entire surfaces, simple (or no) crossovers, and next-to-no or no enclosures, greatly reducing or eliminating box coloration and diffraction effects. They are also, generally speaking, dipoles with figure-eight dispersion patterns, meaning they won't light up sidewalls at select frequencies, skewing timbres. They do tend to have problems with dynamic range on fortississimos due to diaphragm excursion limits (although this isn't true across the board and can be ameliorated by the use of subwoofers, though subwoofers introduce their own problems).
JV:
First off, I don't know of too many planars that have "simple" crossovers. If anything, ESL's have *reactive* crossovers that make them very hard to drive or match to an amp. Then, not having a crossover has been proven to be a bad idea. Read Stereophile's report on Time Dilation from 2005 (concerning the Doppler effect) to learn more. We need crossovers - due to the intermodulation distortion that arises from making one panel reproduce the entire frequency spectrum. And this may explain why single-driver systems never get the nod for "best sound".
Second, the "diffraction" effects. This may come as a big surprise...but panel-type speakers have MORE diffraction than box radiators!! All planar speakers, whether one or two-way, have diaphragms that are clamped at the edges. They function more like tympanic membranes - and the tension on the membranes is impossible to accurately control. Hence, these diaphragms will store and release energy for a long time after the signal stops, just like the skin on a drum.
Third, are interference patterns. These develop between the segmented panels on a Sound Lab while Magnepan's bass panels are inherently non-linear due to their magnetic structure. Then, many lines blend a line-source midrange-tweeter with a *point-source* bass. And this dissimilarity of drive elements destroys any coherency we might of gotten (at different points) in the soundfield. Line-drive elements will blend in amplitude *only* at one listening distance.
Fourth and fifth are the two problems I brought up in my last piece - dynamic range and the "wall" of sound. It's bad enough when speakers are 87-88db, but *really* a crime when they're 82-85db.....
The only good thing about planars is their figure-of-eight radiation pattern. Their lower-mass diaphragms are a plus, too...but if we can't get the dynamic range out of them, what good are they ?
I'm surprised you so readily defend panel-lines when they have all these problems. Were you not aware ??!!
.
" I simply coupled these observations with the fact that the vast majority of even super-speakers are point-sources. And reviewers seem to almost totally house points - outside an occasional Martin or Maggie-guy and of course, HP."
I think a lot of it has to do with the facts that there are many less planars than point-sources. I presume that there are difficulties with the technology which are not as easily understood as point sources. Furthermore, I also think that planars are less acceptable in your average household, due to their size and placement considerations. My Maggies raised a lot of eyebrows decor-wise, but extremely few sound-wise (usually about the bass). Taking all this into account, it is pretty normal that most of the development and production are traditional point-sources. However, that does not mean that the technology or the principle is no good. The MG20.1 is still one of the best speakers any money can buy, IMO.
Yeah, I was unaware, JPH, although I am aware that virtually everything you've said in this post is either scientific nonsense or a zany misconstrual of facts .
JV:
I'm not surprised.....
I mean, if you don't know what the SPL's of a symphony are, then it's only natural that you don't understand the basics of loudspeaker design. Can I ask what part of my panel-line critique is "nonsense" ??
.
Uh, it was you who didn't know what the typical SPLs of a symphony are. And if I'm so "unaware," why cite my use of point sources to support your argument? Can't and won't waste any more time with you JPH. You're not worth it.
No, sir...YOU said SPL peaks were in the 90's when they clearly peak at 110db - half as loud as a rock concert. Remember, every 10db reduction results in half the volume. And I was referring to your unawareness to the shortcomings of *planar* loudspeakers.
But I was glad to see your strong support of points..........
.
I said that average orchestral levels were 70-90dB SPL and that rare peaks on the most massive fortissimos of the most massive pieces might climb up to 107-108dB SPL. You originally claimed 110-115dB peaks.
I didn't see you say 107-08db ANYWHERE. You said 90db was "loud" for an orchestra...but that they "can go past 100" on stage.
And I stand by what I said - only that 110db (at typical seats) is NOT rare. Tony Faulkner measured it...and Musical Fidelity quoted him on their website. Read it........
.
Firstly, Quad is not a true point source (yes I know, it`s central portion is concentrically segmented to help with dispersion characteristic), but is more of an plane source; like all electrostats are (Soundlab, Acoustat, ML, etc).
Secondly, if quality was in numbers, then there would be absolutely no point in making line sources; they couldn`t get any following right there in the start. Those who have good hearing abilities (a minority), know that once you hear a good line source planar dipole (various Maggies, Analysis Audio, old Apogees, etc), there is no way in turning back, in fact; everything else becomes laughable. True, if you value how your bassreflex crappy 15" woofers slam your head during loud "realistic" passages more than finesse, openess, transparency, tonal color and (yes!) natural dynamics (remember big planars have low surface loudness, as opposed to typical small cone mids, tweets and woofers, then there truly is no point of arguing (in fact, there never is; either you hear it or you don`t).
I have tried (listened) to every possible loudspeaker technology for the last thirty years and it is my experience, nothing comes closer to the live performance (of course it only approaches it - it is nowhere near it) of a tall line source ribbon/planar magnetic hybride, period. The owners of Maggie 20.1, Analysis Amphytrion and various old Apogees can confirm that. I really regret Apogee was ruled out so early, if it wasn`t, the situation would be much different today, I`m 100%. The fact most men depend on "WAF", is sad to say the least. The dictatorship of such women is inexcusable, especially if one takes their caprices into equation. Regarding bloated imaging of tall line sources, this is a direct consequence of (the mostly deaf) recording "engineer`s" desire to please the owners of "high end" small 2way (expensive) crap, by means of putting microphones into the singers throats and instruments - the only way to avoid microscopic soundstage abilities of such toys. Putting aside the fact, there is no way you can capture the natural dynamics, tone colors and coherency of live instruments in real spaces with the so called "close miking techniques"...
I believe loudspeaker reproduction was perfected long time ago (okay, almost), but that fact is not something industry whores will wellcome.
Some manufacturers you forgot:
cantusacoustics.com/index.html
www.transmissionaudio.com/
infraplanar.free.fr/infraplanar-english.htm
Quad is point-source - period. And I have never heard of the term "plane source" !!
Then, I never accepted the theory that planars failed because of the WAF. Does *every* audiophile have this problem ? I thought many 'philes had at least one room in the house they could call their own - putting whatever they wanted in it. And needing more space doesn't cut it, either. Any serious sound system will need room to breath and big boxes are no exception. If anything, planars are *less* sensitive to rooms due to their figure-of-eight radiation pattern.
Finally, it seems that most reviewers (like Mr. Valin above) have made their choice...and have chosen *point-sources* as their reference. Plus awarded point models "best of show" over and over again. If line planars - or lines in general - were THAT good, I would think that after all these years more folks would have them in their system. But they don't.
I find it amazing that planar people think their design resembles "live music". Yet the vast majority of audiophiles have rejected this type of speaker, apparently on sound quality / presentation......
Don`t blame others for your ignorance, educate yourself before arguing:
www.trueaudio.com/st_lines.htm
www.getmad.com/Papers/array_explained.pdf (page 13)
or just google "point, line and plane sound sources".
On a side note, why do you keep citing the so called authorities, is your hearing impaired or is it just the lack of your self confidence?
I don`t need anyone telling me what is good, I have the privilege to hear live unamplified music almost every day (in fact, I play two instruments), while the majority of your `philes rely on "audiophile" discs and "test" samplers. According to your "logic", pop music represents the ultimate achievement in music arts (because of enourmous following), while classical, jazz and other more demanding musical styles are only noteworthy to a few eccentric freaks? Well, a lack of good taste never really was a virtue. Industry of cones`n`domes is very powerfull and has a huge interest in selling it`s inherently flawed designs and "rewievers" come in handy when it comes to "convince" the masses in their buying decisions. The whole audio market is being driven by the "new" products, not good ones and people just simpy like to buy "new" and "improved" products to sustain their mental "health". But there is a strong ribbon/planar magnetic following and I see the reason for it in the fact these people more trust their own ears than rewievers, just visit some of their sites and you will see:
www.integracoustics.com/MUG/MUG/
www.audioworld.com/cgi-bin/sw/forumdisplay.cgi
www.indiespinzone.com/mag/mag9.html
Wake up, people and start listening with your ears instead of your eyes!
You are misunderstanding the argument. I'm not talking about driver type - I'm talking about the *array*. And planar-type speakers too...which I guess are "plane" source but it's funny that no-one - except the one co. you cite - call it that. Magnepan doesn't.
And I never said (or hinted ) that pop music was "the ultimate achievement in music arts". Where do you get this stuff ?
So, hundreds of thousands of music lovers (inc. classical) reject planars on sound quality...but they're "wrong". The problems I cited above (in my critique of planars) are real. I'm afraid that your standards for listening to music, outside dipole radiation, are low.
This is becoming pointless. Read all my statements again and try not to confuse all the technical terms. It`s funny you started this topic without knowing the basics of loudspeaker (especially line source) reproduction.
The jury has spoken - planars are virtually dead. And this from audiophiles, many of whom listen to classical music and who *hate* mass-market speakers.......
Ok, chew on this:
www.avrev.com/home-theater-loudspeakers/floorstanding-loudspeakers/magnepan-magneplanar-mg-3.6-loudspeakers.html
"The reason I decided to connect the 3.6s to such a modest set-up was to illustrate that even with budget gear, the 3.6s are capable of sonic feats that most people, audiophiles especially, spend tens if not hundreds of thousands of dollars chasing."
"Yes, there was head banging. Honestly, forget everything you thought you knew about the 3.6s and all of the bloated audiophile nonsense that comes with it, for these are speakers that know how to rock and roll. They are simply and utterly fantastic. "
"I never thought I’d say this in my career, but even in two-channel, the 3.6s create one heck of a surround sound movie experience. The sense of atmosphere in many of Bourne’s wide European shots was incredible. It was if the city went on for days and I was right in the middle of it. The way the 3.6s can unravel the minutest ambient details is quite shocking, given their stature."
"Conclusion
Let’s not beat around the bush. The 3.6s are amazing speakers. With a base price under $4,500, it becomes more and more difficult to justify buying more costly high-end speakers. Sure, the 3.6s are large and they may be a bit old-fashioned looking, but their sheer musicality and live sound is just staggering. They sound like no speakers I’ve ever heard before, in that they don’t sound like speakers at all. They sound like music.
At no point during my time with the Magnepan Magneplanar 3.6 speakers did I ever feel as if I was listening to a prerecorded event. Everything through the 3.6s sounds either live or somehow authentic to the studio. Sure, there are those out there who will say, “Yeah, but Wilson WATT Puppies will give you a better soundstage, and Revels will do deeper bass, blah blah blah.” I don’t care. That’s more of the audiophile crap that I was talking about. The 3.6s aren’t perfect, but for my money, they are the most emotionally honest and involving speakers I have heard anywhere near their price range. "
To be honest JPH-22, this tirade is becoming pretty boring. You don't like planars, that's fine, stay clear of them. I don't understand why you've embarked on this crusade to try convince everyone that they all sound lousy. I don't think you'll get much sympathy with that point of view from many if not most people. You'd get more mileage by being constructive rather than absurdly critical.
My original piece was that planars (and lines in general) are very rare in high-end audio. And this seemed striking to me because 20 years ago, they were very common. I mean, where was the WAF in the 1980's ? It was only a think piece - like most of my other postings on this forum which tend to stir-up conventional thought (like sampling rates, the CD standard, SACD, hornspeakers and 1080 TV).
I didn't expect folks to jump-in and defend their interests so vociferously. So, I responded and gave (my) reasons why I thought lines are suffering. But as we've seen on these forums (even going beyond AV Guide) the discussions usually turn nasty and anger pervades. I don't know why this is. Why can't we just accept other people's opinions ? That's all they are. And yes, "facts" to support an argument - that may help, too. But now I'm not so sure, esp. if it hurts the ones at the center of the discussion..........
Post new comment