03-Oct-2015, 11:44
I totally agree with your comment, complex ensemble with high dynamic range is where Phantom shines less.
Considering size and pricing Phantom is still a one of a kind speaker which leaves any competition far behind.
Nevertheless this lesser subjective performance has an explanation IMO.
Contrary to modern production which relies on very heavy compression, most orchestral recordings feature a very high dynamic range, lots of transients.
In my experience only high efficiency speakers using very light cones and domes have the ability to cope with this. Somehow you need the drivers to be vey "fast". This is probably why the best systems I heard - both studio monitors or audiophile - were using very high efficiency drivers ( TAD, Onken, Altec, JBL ... ).
Phantom is based on obviously low efficiency drivers ( 3000 W to produce 105 dB ) - and that was clearly the only option to produce that awesome bass in such a tiny volume.
To me Phantom is like the iPhone 6 camera : it does an awesome job in a tiny package and I like that. I don't want to bother anymore with the more complicated options, so I am accepting a few limitations
[dyfazltdzrjdxzdquote='ChalleB' pid='26226' dateline='1443861081']
I love the sound of the phantom,
but only with the right kind of music,
mostly small bands with good separation of instruments,
or bass heavy dance music
but music without bass and drums,
such as large scale orchestral music
seems very flat and limited
and actually sounds like any old wireless speaker
could future software help?
or, is it the limitations of the mid and tweeter?
[/quote]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Considering size and pricing Phantom is still a one of a kind speaker which leaves any competition far behind.
Nevertheless this lesser subjective performance has an explanation IMO.
Contrary to modern production which relies on very heavy compression, most orchestral recordings feature a very high dynamic range, lots of transients.
In my experience only high efficiency speakers using very light cones and domes have the ability to cope with this. Somehow you need the drivers to be vey "fast". This is probably why the best systems I heard - both studio monitors or audiophile - were using very high efficiency drivers ( TAD, Onken, Altec, JBL ... ).
Phantom is based on obviously low efficiency drivers ( 3000 W to produce 105 dB ) - and that was clearly the only option to produce that awesome bass in such a tiny volume.
To me Phantom is like the iPhone 6 camera : it does an awesome job in a tiny package and I like that. I don't want to bother anymore with the more complicated options, so I am accepting a few limitations
[dyfazltdzrjdxzdquote='ChalleB' pid='26226' dateline='1443861081']
I love the sound of the phantom,
but only with the right kind of music,
mostly small bands with good separation of instruments,
or bass heavy dance music
but music without bass and drums,
such as large scale orchestral music
seems very flat and limited
and actually sounds like any old wireless speaker
could future software help?
or, is it the limitations of the mid and tweeter?
[/quote]
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
