I'm just running this through my head to make sure what I'm thinking it correct. Please excuse my ignorance.
Please excuse mine as well. I am no expert. I am a deeply experienced end user and that's it.
If I understand this correctly, co-axial designes are supposed to be superior, but arent due to lack of research / knowledge?
Oh boy. It's times like this we need Jay doing the typing. Co-axial loudspeaker design theory is the current best possible expression of the impossible goal of complete flat response and 100% speaker transparency. !00% FRFR and 100% transparency can not be achieved to my understanding. To the best extent possible Jay's designs deliver on "you get out what you put in". Jay's co-axial designs are not perfect. They are however the fullest currently available manifestations of the best existing loudspeaker design theories.
Of course we must remember that we then try to apply these "best possible designs" in some of the worst listening environments. As end users we must do two things:
1) Point the speaker at our ears
2) Use global EQ (mostly on the lows) to "normalize" any given venue to the extent possible.
Scotts are you saying that seperate HF / LF drivers, on a flat surface, are inferior to properly designed co-axial loud speakers?
Yes. Interesting thought huh? The vast majority of the retail loudspeaker industry is based on a seriously flawed model. Lot's of acoustic/physics guys know this. The industry at large could care less. It isn't like stuff by Turbosound, Meyer, et.al. sounds bad. A lot of that stuff sounds quite good. Plus, we have all trained our ears to identify the best of non-co-axial design as "quite good". At least for me, the difference between all the non-co-axial stuff I have heard and Jay's version of co-axial is huge.
Please remember, when we are discussing high end products, whether co-axial or non-co-axial, we are talking about good, better, best. Darn near all the non-co-axial high end stuff is at least very good (until you stand close to it!)
Being that I have a Bose L1, the mid/high frequencies come from the tower itself, and then the subwoofers sit next to it. Does this qualify the design as a non-coaxial speaker?
The Bose L1 is not co-axial. I have a lot of experience from years back working with the Bose L1. It has some strengths but for me a few glaring weaknesses, especially one that affected some sensitive listeners in the audience on several occasions and, at least for me, made the L1 unacceptable. If you do a search on my username and Bose I think I developed my thoughts on the L1 a little more in an old post.
You're very welcome.
____________
Regarding ignorance:
A lot goes in to making a high end FRFR system. A lot more goes into making a high end co-axial system.
As guitar players we tend to think things like:
"I'll buy a really good co-axial speaker and drop it in a cabinet. If I buy good enough components it should sound great."
Here is something Jay posted a while back regarding some of what goes in to designing a high end cabinet:
"Here's a list of some of the issues that affect the behavior of a loudspeaker. All of them - and some additional ones not listed here - must be thoroughly understood and taken into account in order to produce a satisfactory result.
Individual transducers:
1. Maximum available acoustic power output.
2. Absolute bandwidth.
3. Amplitude vs. frequency response.
4. Phase vs. frequency response.
5. Directivity vs. frequency as implemented in the design (IOW, in the final enclosure).
Enclosure:
1. Structural integrity of materials/construction. This is by far the easiest issue to address. Any halfway-decent carpenter can do this, yet many people think this is the main part.
2. Internal standing waves.
3. Diffraction of acoustic energy from edges and surface transitions.
4. Placement of transducers relative to each other and to the enclosure.
System:
1. Absolute bandwidth.
2. Maximum available acoustic power output.
3. Amplitude vs. frequency response.
4. Phase vs. frequency response. This item and 1. immediately above are both contained in the speaker's impulse response.
5. Directivity vs. frequency.
6. Amplitude and phase response at all angles within the intended coverage of the device.
This is not intended to be an exhaustive list."
