Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site

el`Ol wrote:

I know the PAC tweeter of the WLM has the best transients and transparency of all tweeters I know and so is the best tweeter above 5kHz I know, although I hated the implementation (crossed far too low, harsh-sounding upper midrange, lower midrange not anywhere as precise, weak bass, etc.), and I would appreciate to hear it in combination with a good midrange compression driver. Of course I am not 100% sure it works, but close to that figure.

el`Ol,

I never heard PAC tweeters; in fact I do not think I never heard WLM speakers. I do not even know what principle the PAC tweeters use.  However in what say I think there is two major “bloopers”.

1)    Whatever it is, in the WLM speakers the PAC driver is not tweeter but a MF driver. My definition of tweeter is that it is a driver that covers frequency range AFTER a MF channel. There is no dedicated MF channel in WLM speakers and therefore the HF transducer that they user could not be caped as a tweeter. As least a tweeter that is understood in context of this thread. I have expressed many times before that “bad people” love to drool about the quality of tweeter but they do not look tweeter in context of a devise that continue duty of MF driver. I disregard a tweeter itself and my primary attention ONLY how a tweeter compliment the well-defined specifics of MF driver. I my mind, if there is no MF driver, or a crappy MF driver used, then there is no way to judge tweeter

2)    In 2003 I experimented a lot with large tweeters. At that time I had a notion of “HF radiation field”.  What I learned was that no matter what I did I was with a large tweeter actually smearing the transients. (Wilson WAMM used the same concept with large injection panel). If you look at the simple geometry of a MF driver and a large HF panel then you will see that juts based upon the size of the tweeter is also will have time differences between beginning of panel and end of pane in relation to single-point MF driver. That smudge a leading edge of the wave, though I have to admit the in a nice way. Still, this approach could hardly be called as “the fastest transients”. They might be pleasantest transients, perhaps even “best transients”, the Quad  people would argue this point favorably, but they are not challenging in transients competition. 

Rerurn to Romy the Cat's Site