Joe,

Joe Roberts wrote:

Interesting! The Manger specs are 150-30k so that is not a great improvement, but in the Aporia, the backwave characteristics become important. The Manger backwave is not optimal. If this invention is as flat out the back as out the front, that could be an improvement. Does he have any drivers?

I do not know that HP use to tell in 80s

Anyhow, I think you probably need to get in touch with him

Joe Roberts wrote:

I do not know that HP use to tell in 80s I know you don't, that's why I seriously suggest you check it out.

tuga wrote:

I once came across this article on Stereo and Phase by JM LeCleach. It has interesting considerations on the subject of imaging

drdna wrote:

Romy, are you not familiar with the early efforts of Harry Pearson? I lived through all of that of course. I hesitate to say it, but it is true. Most of what you are saying is exactly what HP said in his early writings, if you didn't know. He is like your evil twin, or perhaps you are his evil twin . Seriously, though, it would be very much worth your while to read his early stuff, from BEFORE TAS got bogged down by commercial endorsements, etc. You would find it fun. You don't need to be Ramanujan.

Nope, I never know anything about him before mid 90s and frankly speaking considering what I read from him in mid-end 90s, from what my friends told me about him, and from the comment of some people who visited him I never expressed any interest in Harry Pearson. In fact, I was in second part of 90s affected by one Harry Pearson development when he told about the cutting-edge home theaters installations. What I built mine and spent considerable amount efforts to figured out how it works I realized where Mr. Pearson fails in his analysis. Ironically (if to keep the sinister part of the deal aside) he slips at the very same black-ice as Joe does. Joe still does not “get” that a playback do not impersonate the imaging of original performance event but rather create the imaging of reproductive intentions where the system arranger and certain elements of playback act as interpretive forces of relation between a listener and the performance/composition.  I do not know what Harry Pearson advocated in 80s but I know that it was not “it” as this thing is imposable to sell. Anyhow, I doubt that I would be interested to found the TAS from 80s. The right answer are available without any proxies and without anybody’s desire to sell them. I also have no personal interest in Harry’s sinking/writing.

Romy the Cat wrote:

Joe still does not “get” that a playback do not impersonate the imaging of original performance event but rather create the imaging of reproductive intentions where the system arranger and certain elements of playback act as interpretive forces of relation between a listener and the performance/composition.

Romy the Cat wrote:

I do not know what Harry Pearson advocated in 80s but I know that it was not “it” as this thing is imposable to sell.

Joe still does not "get" that a playback do not impersonate the imaging of original performance event but rather create the imaging of reproductive intentions where the system arranger and certain elements of playback act as interpretive forces of relation between a listener and the performance/composition.

To summarize the thread, at least what is important - not the Robert’s cheap clownship, I have to admit that I spoke with a number of people, the people who are NOT the “exuberant morons” in my view, who went to CES and heard Silbatone Aporia.  The feedback was from negative to a pure surprise why I even ask about them. Inspire that on the web the industry cheerleaders are trying to trumpet an idiotic kitsch about Aporia and stuffed up sites with cheerful comments but reportedly it has absolutely nothing to with realty. Well how different it from any other audio products that were stupidly drummed up after Hi-Fi shows?

I have to admit that it is not a good idea to judge a loudspeaker based upon somebody else’s comment but I do not judge the loudspeaker but I rather question the gravity of Silbatone intentions that were stuffed into the Aporia.  If the level of Silbatone folks’ interests is similar to the Joe Roberts’ interest then the entire Silbatone product line is unfortunately suitable only for sound reinforcements in Dunkin Donalds. I would be careful with guessing and I have no need to guess but there was 3 contractive and important points dropped in this thread:

1)      An ability to damp or QA the wave-propagation  drivers with pressure reflections

2)      Existence of wave-propagation design concept that has no problem typical for Manger designs with their fjordian wave extinguishing

3)      Disability of the  marketing pumpers of audio industry to sell the idea of a single-driver speakers to anybody who has audio IQ higher then the “targeted  audiophile average”

With all this said, I think the thread turned out to be educational and indicative for a reader who migh have the  Dark Mater between his/her ears.

I have to admit that it is not a good idea to judge a loudspeaker based upon somebody else’s comment

Joe, it you willing to quote me then quote my entire thought but not the out of context taken sound-bites that make you demagogy sealable. I am sorry to say it but you are in uncharted water and you are out of depth.  I am not sure why you are still going, if the keel deep into a dune and the propellers are still spinning then it create nothing but bubbles. Well, creations of bubbles is you specialty and as you said, some dealer and distributors on the deck might smell the stench of burned oil and noise of heavy cavitations  and might bite. I am glad that I was instrumental, and I do not mind. Make sure that the dealer/distributors you pick would not the friends of mine as it would be too ironic to hear from one more time their typical comment: “…the product is crap but thankfully the customers are idiots. BTW, Romy lay off to bitch about this at you site, I have a mortgage to pay.”

Anyway, Joe, I think you need to find another vent to beam your “audio seriousness” to others, from what you have impressed in this thread I am not impressed, moreover, very disappointed. There are plenty audio comminutes who would gladly adapt you, kiss you ass, feed you with the stores that you would like to hear and who help you to demonize the people who consider your view as too light. I too much know all those games to have any inters in them. I am sure that you soon will find your Silbatone Aporia US representative who will take your torch of “schizophrenic hi-fi” and you will shut up until you see a new opportunity to express that psychotic babble of audio practicing.

Tuga,

It is very much NOT about the Point Source. The Point Source is absolutely irrelevant label that was invented by the single driver enthusiasts in order to mentally differentiate their speakers from multi-drivers configuration and in order to justify why some people are not able to integrated multi-drivers. It is like a ship going across an ocean and leaves a water mark behind: one person can design a ship to hit zillion important operational parameters of the ship and another person who is clues about the whole about ship building would design a ship to leave specific water mark. There is no need to ask this person how fast the ship might go, what would be displacement, draft, length, ability break to ice, What would be propulsion system, what would be fuel, people or cargo capacity. Those people will see only that the ship leave the watermarks in the shape of Mogein Dovid and they are ambivalent and immuned to understand anything else.

I think the concept of Point Source itself, as it is being use by single-driver people shell not be used and very many single-driver designs are not proper Point Source. I might endorse the Point Source concept but only form a perspective of actual true mining of the term. Back in my photography time there was a devise: optical bench and one of the attributes of this devise was an optical system the set up the calibration target at infinite distance. Not the 100 times of focal distance of a measured lens but in true infinity (think bout a very powerful inverted binocular). In this setting the dimensions of target have no width and it is just a dot in space. This characteristic is important for some optical measurements. BTW, I was a semi-inventor of a very interesting devise for silver photography that took advantage of many benefits of “Single Point Light Source” in enlargers – it worked very very well, anyhow it is a history… So, why I bring it all up?  Because in my vocabulary I do use the Point Source concept but it has absolutely different meaning then what single-driver people trying to use. When you have a stereo installation and you play (proper) mono material then you playback present sound radiated from a single point directly between the loudspeakers. This is all know and simple BUT the absolute dimensions of this monophonic single point, an ability of the single point to maintain own  minimum dimensions at the stress of different dynamic and frequency ranges and the most important – the mechanisms of evaluating of the single point dimensions is totally different subject and I treat THIS subject with high respect. Generally the smallest single point Sound would be able to collapse itself on mono the better imaging you will have in stereo, but it is not all so simple and there is LOT more to it. Anyhow, that is the definition of Point Source that exists in my vocabulary. The way how the single-driver audio people use terms Point Source ordinary is just the way how they were sold to use the phrase by the stupid audio propaganda and they juts repeat it brainlessly like monkeys.

drdna wrote:

Thanks tuga. It is a nice article, but my French is a little rusty. It seems that he does very little more than explain the limitations of stereo versus binaural reproduction. From this came the schools of thought of quadrophonic reproduction and omnidirectional speakers, etc. of course. I, myself, just accept the limitations of mono and stereo recordings and do the best I can. Is there some more nuance I missed (owing to my poor French)? If so, I would appreciate a summary of your thoughts on how this can impact our audio systems. Adrian

tuga wrote:

Hello Adrian, I added this paper as an interesting read for our discussion of "the point-source" and I think that the pictures are clear and informative enough on that subject. There's also there's mentioning of several aspects of speaker design (like imaging, time and phase distortion, etc.) that match Romy's views on the subject and have been put to practice in the Macondo. Best, Tuga

tuga wrote:

I really meant to illustrate the fact that Point Source does not exist in "real life" and that it's analogy with a single driver makes no sense (then there is the question of live vs. recorded-and-then-reproduced sound and live sound being different things...)

Joe Roberts wrote:

I would argue that the notion of point source is not the important thing about single driver speakers.

Joe Roberts wrote:

Ideally, a multi-horn system would include the notion of narrowing radiation into its execution, but the problem is complicated by the fact that various instruments present different patterns of dispersion narrowing--it is not purely a function of frequency.

drdna wrote:

However, the concept of the point source is absolutely valid. The audio reproduction should follow the transduction from the microphone, which is point source. We have to "play by the rules we make."