Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Baffle size of Sony AR1

Expand Messages
  • Bernard Haitink
    I guess my earlier post was buried in the long AR1 thread. Robert, do you mind to comment on the following? Thanks, Patrick Re: Sony SS-AR1 Forgive me for the
    Message 1 of 3 , Jul 2 5:14 PM
    • 0 Attachment
      I guess my earlier post was buried in the long AR1 thread.

      Robert, do you mind to comment on the following?

      Thanks,
      Patrick


      Re: Sony SS-AR1

      Forgive me for the email address first. I am not the Haitink. I have been a long
      time reader and it's the first time to post.

      Robert, how did the AR1s succeed in the baffle step issue with a relative narrow
      one. It's edge is not that curved/smooth judging from the picture. Gradient
      Helsinki did it with a rather unconventional shape, and that's understandable.
      Is wide baffle really necessary given AR1s' success.

      Patrick
    • Robert
      I suppose it would have been better if the speaker had been wider. I still think speakers ought to be wide. Compare figure 6 here to figure 4 in Sphiles AR1
      Message 2 of 3 , Jul 2 8:16 PM
      • 0 Attachment
        I suppose it would have been better if the speaker
        had been wider. I still think speakers ought to be wide.

        Compare figure 6 here to figure 4 in Sphiles AR1 measurements

        www.stereophile.com/content/sonus-faber-cremona-elipsa-loudspeaker-measurements

        There is quite a considerable difference actually
        Or try this
        figure 3
        http://www.stereophile.com/content/acoustic-research-ar-303-loudspeaker-measurements

        It really does matter, the wide baffle.
        To quote Anna Russell(on her Wagner commentary)
        "I am not making this up, you know."

        You could also look at far off axis in room of the M40s here
        http://www.regonaudio.com/Audio%20in%20Modern%20Times.pdf
        and the discussion attached on page 18

        This really does matter!

        On the other hand, the fact that there are two woofers in the AR1 makes
        (I estimate) the speaker have more directivity in the bass
        than would otherwise be the case.

        The AR1s are a little midrange oriented (as I said in the review).
        This is probably attached to the baffle step, would be
        my guess. Also as stated in the review, I EQed this down
        slightly. Slightly is the operative word I suppose--but it mattered.
        For some reason, there is no inroom response there. Sometimes
        they do it and sometimes they do not.

        And they have a serious droop at crossover off axis. This has
        the effect of making the mids sounds somewhat exposed. These are
        not big things--the speaker is quite smooth and flat as speakers
        go. But it is all audible of course. If Sphile would expand their
        vertical scales a bit one could see such things a little more easily.

        How much of these matters can be dealt with by EQ? Quite a lot,
        but in the end radiation pattern counts...The Sony AR1s are
        great speakers. That does not mean that I think every aspect is ideal!
        I liked them a lot--but I would have made them twice as wide. On the other hand, that would have made them hard to sell, that is for sure
        since most people buy with their eyes along with their ears,
        not with their ears alone--even assuming that they like neutral room sound!


        REG

        --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Bernard Haitink" <bernardhaitink@...> wrote:
        >
        > I guess my earlier post was buried in the long AR1 thread.
        >
        > Robert, do you mind to comment on the following?
        >
        > Thanks,
        > Patrick
        >
        >
        > Re: Sony SS-AR1
        >
        > Forgive me for the email address first. I am not the Haitink. I have been a long
        > time reader and it's the first time to post.
        >
        > Robert, how did the AR1s succeed in the baffle step issue with a relative narrow
        > one. It's edge is not that curved/smooth judging from the picture. Gradient
        > Helsinki did it with a rather unconventional shape, and that's understandable.
        > Is wide baffle really necessary given AR1s' success.
        >
        > Patrick
        >
      • Robert
        PS Just to be clear--the Sony AR1 is not super-narrow. It is a little over 12 inches wide. I would have liked to see say 18 inches wide. But at least it is not
        Message 3 of 3 , Jul 2 9:01 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          PS Just to be clear--the Sony AR1 is not super-narrow.
          It is a little over 12 inches wide. I would have
          liked to see say 18 inches wide. But at least it is not
          say 8 inches wide. The difference between 18 and 12 is
          3 to 2: the baffle step is moved up by an interval of a fifth(3 to 2 is exactly the frequency ratio of a perfect fifth).
          To go from 18 to 8 moves the baffle step up by more than an octave.
          (18/8>2).
          Because we are speaking of ratios, the change from 18 to 8
          --9 to 4 ratio--is like double the change from 18 to 12 in terms
          of pitch intervals, namely
          9/4 = (3/2) x (3/2)
          obviously ! So the baffle step moves twice as far in musical terms,
          moves by two perfect fifths,
          in going from 18 to 8 as it does in going from 18 to 12.
          Two perfect fifths is a lot worse than one perfect fifth.

          Still if it had been my speaker design I would have made it wide,
          like the Sonus Faber Elipsa.

          REG



          PS Compare figure 5 here
          http://www.stereophile.com/content/sonus-faber-amati-homage-anniversario-loudspeaker-measurements
          an 11 inch wide speaker with
          this which is 21.7 inches wide
          figure 6
          http://www.stereophile.com/content/sonus-faber-cremona-elipsa-loudspeaker-measurements
          Think about what this means in terms of power response and of course off axis, first reflection as well.
          This matters! These two speakers are from the same company.
          One might think they would make up their mind.
          "Did you ever have make up your mind,pick on one and leave the other behind, did you ever have to finally decide?"

          --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Robert" <regonaudio@...> wrote:
          >
          > I suppose it would have been better if the speaker
          > had been wider. I still think speakers ought to be wide.
          >
          > Compare figure 6 here to figure 4 in Sphiles AR1 measurements
          >
          > www.stereophile.com/content/sonus-faber-cremona-elipsa-loudspeaker-measurements
          >
          > There is quite a considerable difference actually
          > Or try this
          > figure 3
          > http://www.stereophile.com/content/acoustic-research-ar-303-loudspeaker-measurements
          >
          > It really does matter, the wide baffle.
          > To quote Anna Russell(on her Wagner commentary)
          > "I am not making this up, you know."
          >
          > You could also look at far off axis in room of the M40s here
          > http://www.regonaudio.com/Audio%20in%20Modern%20Times.pdf
          > and the discussion attached on page 18
          >
          > This really does matter!
          >
          > On the other hand, the fact that there are two woofers in the AR1 makes
          > (I estimate) the speaker have more directivity in the bass
          > than would otherwise be the case.
          >
          > The AR1s are a little midrange oriented (as I said in the review).
          > This is probably attached to the baffle step, would be
          > my guess. Also as stated in the review, I EQed this down
          > slightly. Slightly is the operative word I suppose--but it mattered.
          > For some reason, there is no inroom response there. Sometimes
          > they do it and sometimes they do not.
          >
          > And they have a serious droop at crossover off axis. This has
          > the effect of making the mids sounds somewhat exposed. These are
          > not big things--the speaker is quite smooth and flat as speakers
          > go. But it is all audible of course. If Sphile would expand their
          > vertical scales a bit one could see such things a little more easily.
          >
          > How much of these matters can be dealt with by EQ? Quite a lot,
          > but in the end radiation pattern counts...The Sony AR1s are
          > great speakers. That does not mean that I think every aspect is ideal!
          > I liked them a lot--but I would have made them twice as wide. On the other hand, that would have made them hard to sell, that is for sure
          > since most people buy with their eyes along with their ears,
          > not with their ears alone--even assuming that they like neutral room sound!
          >
          >
          > REG
          >
          > --- In regsaudioforum@yahoogroups.com, "Bernard Haitink" <bernardhaitink@> wrote:
          > >
          > > I guess my earlier post was buried in the long AR1 thread.
          > >
          > > Robert, do you mind to comment on the following?
          > >
          > > Thanks,
          > > Patrick
          > >
          > >
          > > Re: Sony SS-AR1
          > >
          > > Forgive me for the email address first. I am not the Haitink. I have been a long
          > > time reader and it's the first time to post.
          > >
          > > Robert, how did the AR1s succeed in the baffle step issue with a relative narrow
          > > one. It's edge is not that curved/smooth judging from the picture. Gradient
          > > Helsinki did it with a rather unconventional shape, and that's understandable.
          > > Is wide baffle really necessary given AR1s' success.
          > >
          > > Patrick
          > >
          >
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.