Youtube video with Richard Vandersteen!

[gkatay]

 

[GdnrBob]

Listening to Mr. V., I think it would be interesting to try an experiment comparing time/phase coherancy vs. non-time/phase coherancy. I wonder how many people are able to discern the difference?

B

[Richard Vandersteen]

In an old-fashioned A vs B very few initially.  Over time one gets familiar with how realistic familiar instruments can be when just listening, enough to notice because it just feels right, and other good sounding speaker designs sound less connected emotionally.  Many Audiophiles want their speakers to come to attention especially when playing them for friends.  I am reminded of a carton I saw decades ago where two audiophiles are standing next to a grand piano being played by a pianist the caption said, "I think they burned out the tweeter".  I have worked very hard over the years to remove as much character of the speaker as I can, so it won't get into the way of the music.  Some would call them boring.  When Nathian and I are doing R&D and we discover noticeably more information, but the sound is sweeter, those are the golden money days.  RV

[Holmz]

Quote

19’:50”:  The wife doesn’t want to listen to them anymore, and the cat and dog are unhappy. But hey they sold the product.

 

[Audiophil6616]

I believe Richard could have said more about pistonic drivers which I believe have noticeably improved sound especially his pistonic tweeter. As a jazz and classical music listener the pistonic tweeter is a real winner for authenticity.

[Holmz]

56 minutes ago, Audiophil6616 said:

I believe Richard could have said more about pistonic drivers which I believe have noticeably improved sound especially his pistonic tweeter. As a jazz and classical music listener the pistonic tweeter is a real winner for authenticity.

Maybe…

But when I look around there is no Thiel, no Spika, No Dunlavy, no Quad.
They have largely all been replaced when Linkwitz and Riley came off the mountain with their LW crossovers.
So everything is “a pushin-and-a-pullin”, across the frequency range.

Then there are some speakers that consider diffraction, but there are a lot of others that are just massive sheets of wood, Devore, Klipsch, etc.
Some have a lot of sound, and can really do a lot with very little amplifier.
Whether their cabinets are ringing or not is uncertain, but a ringing cabinet helps to make more sound, and to sound fuller.

And then there are speakers with lots of divers, like the Texton, which somewhat remind me of the wiring seen at the Trinity site in order to get “time alignment”.
Or reminds me of a spider or fly’s eye.

But yeah - a pistonic driver is a good thing.
Low distortion motors are probably less important than drivers which have less happening from a compression perspective.

I think that the basics were covered pretty well.
And some of the clips like, “sounded good long enough for the check to clear,” I like.

[Richard Vandersteen]

15 hours ago, Holmz said:

Maybe…

But when I look around there is no Thiel, no Spika, No Dunlavy, no Quad.
They have largely all been replaced when Linkwitz and Riley came off the mountain with their LW crossovers.
So everything is “a pushin-and-a-pullin”, across the frequency range.

Then there are some speakers that consider diffraction, but there are a lot of others that are just massive sheets of wood, Devore, Klipsch, etc.
Some have a lot of sound, and can really do a lot with very little amplifier.
Whether their cabinets are ringing or not is uncertain, but a ringing cabinet helps to make more sound, and to sound fuller.

And then there are speakers with lots of divers, like the Texton, which somewhat remind me of the wiring seen at the Trinity site in order to get “time alignment”.
Or reminds me of a spider or fly’s eye.

But yeah - a pistonic driver is a good thing.
Low distortion motors are probably less important than drivers which have less happening from a compression perspective.

I think that the basics were covered pretty well.
And some of the clips like, “sounded good long enough for the check to clear,” I like.

Holmz, all of the companies you mentioned had at least two things in common 1) They were Time and Phase Correct.  2) This required a chamber and having each and every crossover hand tuned to the carefully matched drivers installed.  It is easy to know why so few speaker manufactures go through this expense when Time and Phase is only one of the many important parameters in a good speaker design!  This puts this feature low on the priority list but if you are sensitive as I am it moves to the top priority.  I do believe many people are sensitive to timing but have not identified its importance, but it is how our ear/brain works.  RV

[ctsooner]

Funny as I have owned Spike's back in the day. I always enjoyed the Dunlevy's and Quads too.  Thiel was always a bit hot for my ears, but still sounded better than so many others out there.  

[Glen]

I enjoyed the video; thanks for making us aware. It’s nice to watch videos like this that give insight into the design philosophy and are more conversational rather than just a polished commercial. Each time I watch a video with Richard, there always seem to be a little more detail given in regards to the history of the speaker or how it’s made. That always keeps me interested in watching his interviews. I would love to see more videos that show how the speakers are made. The one that I saw was great, and made me want more.  I look forward to the next video about subwoofers.

 

Glen

[stratocaster]

On 7/24/2024 at 5:33 PM, GdnrBob said:

Listening to Mr. V., I think it would be interesting to try an experiment comparing time/phase coherancy vs. non-time/phase coherancy. I wonder how many people are able to discern the difference?

B

The absence of listening fatigue would be apparent much earlier than  the ability to discern differences which would then set the stage to sit down with different pieces of music and appreciate the fundamentals behind the speaker.  

[DC-93]

Thank you, RV.