|
Recent Additions
Budget Components Audacious Audio
Loudspeakers
Amplification
Digital Sources
Analog Sources
Accessories Listening / Art Dudley The Fifth Element / John Marks Music in the Round / Kal Rubinson Fine Tunes / Jonathan Scull Special Features Reference Interviews Think Pieces Historical Recording of the Month Records 2 Die 4 Music/Recordings Stephen Mejias Robert Baird Fred Kaplan Wes Phillips Audio News Past eNewsletters RMAF 2008 FSI 2008 CES 2008 RMAF 2007 CEDIA 2007 HE 2007 FSI 2007 CES 2007 China 2006 RMAF 2006 HFN 2006 CEDIA 2006 HE 2006 FSI 2006 CES 2006 Forums Galleries Vote Previous Votes Dealer Locator AV Links Audiophile Societies Contact Us Customer Service New Subscription Digital Subscription Renew Give a Gift Sub Services Recordings Backissues More . . . Phono Preamp Hi-Fi Phono Cartridge Amplifiers Stereo Speakers |
Dynaudio Contour 3.0 loudspeaker:
The vertical dispersion plot (fig.4) shows the changes in response as the microphone is moved above or below the tweeter axis. The slight suckout in the mid-treble can be seen to fill in for listeners who sit with their ears slightly below the tweeter's 37" height from the ground. Conversely, the suckout deepens for standing listeners. Fig.4 Dynaudio Contour 3.0, vertical response family at 50", normalized to response on tweeter axis, from back to front: differences in response 15 degrees-5 degrees above HF axis; reference response; differences in response 5 degrees-15 degrees below HF axis. The Dynaudio's step response (fig.5) is typical of a flat-baffle design in that it is not time-coherent, despite the use of first-order crossovers. And, in fact, closer inspection reveals that while the tweeter and woofer are connected with positive acoustic polarity, the midrange unit inverts polarity. Not too much should be made of this, but it does lead me to suspect that the measured lack of lower-midrange energy is crossover-related, and, in turn, that this lack will be more audible in drier, smaller rooms. Fig.5 Dynaudio Contour 3.0, step response on tweeter axis at 50" (5ms time window, 30kHz bandwidth). The Contour 3.0's cumulative spectral-decay or waterfall plot (fig.6) is fundamentally clean, but a slight ridge of delayed energy can be seen at the cursor position, 1.5kHz. This is probably low enough not to have any subjective consequences other than at very high levels, when it might add a bit of hardness to the sound. Fig.6 Dynaudio Contour 3.0, cumulative spectral-decay plot at 50" (0.15ms risetime). Finally, LG commented on the Dynaudio's rocklike construction. I used a simple plastic-tape accelerometer to examine the cabinets' vibrational behavior. Despite its large panels, what resonances there were had been pushed up high in frequency by the rigid internal construction, minimizing their audibility. For example, fig.7 shows a waterfall plot calculated from the accelerometer's output when it was fastened to the sidewall 8" from the top. The only detectable mode is very high in frequency, just under 500Hz, and is low in level. This is excellent cabinet design.—John Atkinson Fig.7 Dynaudio Contour 3.0, cumulative spectral-decay plot of accelerometer output fastened to cabinet back wall above crossover panel. (MLS driving voltage to speaker, 7.55V; measurement bandwidth, 2kHz.)
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||





