Bennett Prescott wrote on Fri, 02 February 2007 22:46 |
David J Lee wrote on Fri, 02 February 2007 16:09 | Just a question here for the logical and practical minded folks out there: What makes a cardioid cabinet a cardioid cabinet? Marketing hype? Isn't a cabinet cardioid if it delivers significantly more energy to the front than it does to the rear? Is cardioid an output pattern or is it a marketing buzzword that allows manufacturers to charge more for boxes that have more drivers, processing and amplifiers in them?
|
David,
I've read this several times and I can still only see it as an unjustified attack on our design and company philosophy. Have I somehow wronged you? Are you suggesting that our product doesn't meet spec?
I think what makes a cardioid pattern is fairly well understood, and its limitations are also fairly well understood. We happen to be getting additional front to rear rejection from a phase network and rear facing drivers. You're doing it with large horns. Both methods are valid, and I think we're both getting remarkable output from a relatively compact box.
The end result is what's important. We're not sneaking around in the dark trying to foist extra drivers and amplifier channels on our customers, and I am personally insulted by your insinuation that we would be in business to fool people into buying "extra" components.
|
Whoa there, Bennett!
Maybe you should read it agian. You're reading in things I never said. You're inferring a lot of bad intent on my part which simply isn't the case. You are not my enemy, Bennett. I have nothing but the highest regard for you and your products. I can't imagine what would give you the idea that I would attack you? Why would I want to do that? Of course you haven't wronged me, that's ridiculous! On a personal level I found you to be a super nice, very honest and helpful guy.
I heard your cardioid box and thought it was very well behaved, loud and deep as well as having well controlled amplifiers and limiters. It was also very compact and lightweight for the amount of output it produced and I have never even seen any of your marketing materials so I'm definitly not accusing you or ADR of producing the 'cardioid subwoofer' marketing hype.
I have no beef with your company philosophy, either. I fully embrace the idea of self-powered, internally processed loudspeakers. I intend to be selling some in the near future.
I certainly didn't insinuate that you were trying to fool people into buying unneccesary components. Those are your words, not mine. I think this misunderstanding may stem from the fact that yours was the only box at the shootout that was self-powered and actively processed to be cardioid. While it was the only one there, it's not the only one on the market. Nexo and Meyer also make them, as do others, and it was not your box that was foremost in my mind when I went ranting about this buzzword. It was actually another manufacturer whose 'cardioid subwoofer' I have heard in arrays of 16 boxes.
Granted it's an assumption but I was sure that when Scott called the Z-5000 a 'non cardioid subwoofer' he wasn't making a direct comparison to your box but rather to a larger group of boxes that are specifically marketed as cardioid subwoofers. His comment simply made me think that if a subwoofer can maintain decent pattern control to a reasonably low frequency, no matter how it does it, it should be considered a cardiod box. My question to myself was why did he consider the Z-5000 to be non-cardioid when it does exhibit a cardioid pattern?
I met Scott, and, like you and I, he certainly seems to be a knowledgable, reasonable and thoughtful guy. I certainly wasn't implying that he did something wrong by calling the Z-5000 an non cardioid box. To me it simply appeared that Scott considered the Z-5000 to be non-cardioid because either A) it didn't have any additional components that made it actively cardioid or B) he hadn't seen any marketing materials that referred to it as a cardioid design, or perhaps C) all of the above. This was enlightening to me. To me, in terms of subwoofers, cardioid is a description of an output pattern but how it is achieved is not a part of the definition in my mind. There are numerous different ways to produce a cardioid pattern, all of them are valid and some are more effective than others at producing certain results. My point was that it seems the only method that's being called cardioid right now is the method you guys, Nexo and Meyer are using and there still is more than one way to skin that cat.
I'm sorry you felt offended, Benett. My comments really weren't about you or your box. They were about the overall perception that there is only one way to build a cardioid box. To be perfectly clear, no one should infer from my comments that Bennet Prescott or Eona ADR are producing loudspeakers that don't meet spec or include any unnecessary components. I've no doubt that all the compnents in them are necessary and functional to produce the design objective. Nor should you believe for a moment that I harbor any ill will toward you, Bennett. I certainly didn't expect you to take my comments personally. I'm not in the habit of making personal attacks on anyone. I enjoyed meeting you, I appreciate all you did to make the event happen and run smoothly and I wish you the best success in your endeavors.
I bid you peace and happiness, my friend.