PC-Engine said:
During development of the SuperTweeter, an interesting result was noted. We were trying to cancel a 10dB peak in the response at 30kHz, electrically in the crossover network. For the measurements, we used a pseudo- random digital noise sequence, with 100kHz bandwidth. The presence or absence of this peak could readily be discriminated by listeners, even under blind conditions. There was however no change in the measured frequency response below 28kHz, further supporting the above research.
Hey, they found "a" test that supports their assertion! Do they also cite the hundreds of tests that would falsify the assertion? (This is akin to throwing the dart and then placing the bullseye around it.) Of course not, this is a white paper intended to explain why a product "needs" to exist. Why just cite a single instance where something happened with an electronic filter and a pseudo-random noise sample? Why not cite more pertinent examples where the listeners could indentify using actual music samples? Could it be that such tests
were conducted and the results were
not particularly supportive to the focus of the whitepaper? Hmmm...
Even with conventional CD sources, the addition of a SuperTweeter reduces phase error and improves transient performance significantly below 20kHz. This leads to increased tonal accuracy at all frequencies, as the harmonics of instruments are not distorted in time. This benefits any high quality loudspeaker...
This is where they conveniently stepped into "marketing mode". As has already been discussed, phase error is pretty out of whack by around 2 kHz
and above so improvements to transient performance are dubious, at best. It is simply a well-behaved tweeter with extended ultrasonic range. Nothing wrong with being
just that, but that doesn't really shout out and SELL. If the phase error is drifting around by 2 kHz, the "harmonics of instruments" are pretty much as "distorted in time" as they can get. As long as it is well-behaved, you won't notice anything untoward so as to challenge the claim. That still doesn't make it true, but this is
marketing not dissemination of fact.
Some people are perfectly happy with their speakers that rolloff at 22kHz and regular CDs. I however want speakers that can take full advantage of the SACD and DVD Audio formats.
In that case, I'm sure you have prepped your system to play to levels as high as 150 dB at less than .001% distortion to get the full dynamic range and "finesse" of SACD? You do realize you have as much as 50 dB of ambient noise to overcome in a typical home listening environment, right? Do you have your mega-watt rating speakers and amps to handle that? Will this Supertweeter even handle more than a 100 W? 20 W? How about the rest of your electronics? Good to 110 dB S/N? That must be one speeecial EQ you have there to do that . 75 dB S/N would be typical for an average EQ. 90 dB would be a pretty good piece. Where do you think yours sits? How about the tweeters in your speakers? Are they precisely aimed to fire directly into your ear canals at some desired seating location? Tweeters of any reasonable dome size tend to get quite beamy above 15 kHz, let alone a whopping 50 kHz. If you aren't on-axis, don't count on getting much output reaching you above 15 kHz or so. See how the logistics ruthlessly pile up against you? Suffice to say, adding an SACD player to your "old" system and expecting to automatically gain the benefits of said format is more than just a fanciful wish. You got to literally rethink/revamp everything down the chain (lucky for equipment dealers, I'm sure), and literally all of it seriously challenges the bounds of practicality (think the neighbors will put up with your 150 dB outbursts?). Got your pseudo-random noise SACD to listen to, to make it all pay off? Got to have that! Otherwise it all degenerates to just elitist style specsmanship. Oh wait...
The Tannoy whitepaper has much more credibility than what you've said so far which AFAIC is opinion based on outdated classical theories.
Perhaps you believe the whitepaper more because it is telling you what you
want to hear? You'll find a lot of audiophile facets that rely on this psychology quite heavily. Don't believe what I say because it is "old" news? Suit yourself. They
are the basics. Does the classical theory of "loudness curve" suddenly not apply, as well? Probably not (in your estimation), as that would make it substantially more difficult (if at all possible) to "hear" ultrasonic bandwidth once your music sample contains things such as midrange and low treble. It simply "cannot be" lest your ultrasonic hearing aspirations evaporate into a faint pipe dream... Also wonder how much of your sensitive ultrasonic hearing you will keep with frequent outbursts of 150 dB program material?
Like I said before advances in speaker technology have already transcended the classical theories that have limited designs of the past.
I see- broken the laws of physics, as it seems? If you can make that logical leap, one only wonders what you
wouldn't believe...
You can either stick with the old way of doing things or you can adopt new methods that have already proven to be superior.
...or just market them as "superior", and hope no one knows better. Could this be you?
BTW the equalizer with the 20Hz and 20kHz gain adjustments only cost a couple hundred dollars. I use it to tailor my music. Also when I adjust the 20kHz gain to say 12 db I can hear the increased gain especially from cymbals.
I guess the term "Q" is utterly foreign to you? No chance you are just hearing the sideband effects at 16 kHz, right? Maybe even a bit of extra zing at a mere 12 kHz? The slider says "20", so that
must be the frequency, I'm hearing...
Also, did it ever occur to you that arbitrarily applying boosts with an EQ
further contorts your precious phase response any which way but "true"? So much for accurate transient performance.
I have no problem believing you have attained a system that sounds terrific to you. However, the associations you have made to certain technical aspects are just riddled with logical holes. The more you reveal, the more "what if's" you pose, the more outlandish your position is revealed to be.
If you don't have a technical understanding of audio and speaker technology, then how can you rightly determine what you are hearing? Discerning something that sounds "good" is certainly possible, but as soon as you attempt to associate that with dubious technical specs, that is where you may run aground. To that effect, it seems you are off-track on a lot of stuff, regardless of your confidence over it. ...But that's just little ole me saying that, so does it really matter? I never imagined I could convince you of any of this, but I didn't want to let the other readers here go on your words alone w/o realizing there is an entirely different side of the story to it (the right side, in my estimation 
