Feltran
Well-known member
I've seen and heard a lot on these forums about "handling the rear wave," and I've been thinking about getting some acoustic panels myself to put behind my speakers. I just realized today, however, that Martin Logan says on their website about all (almost anyway) of their speakers:
"True dipole speakers, such as electrostatic panels, have long been noted for their near-ideal radiation patterns. They send very little sound to the sides, thereby minimizing side-wall reflections with short arrival times that tend to interfere with perception of the direct sound. Their strong rear radiation, however, produces a generous amount of ambience-enriching later-arriving reflections off the wall behind them."
which makes it sound like they view the rear wave as a "feature" that improves the speaker. Are there any people here who really think the rear wave is better just bouncing off of an untreated wall, or is Martin Logan just trying to make their product description sound as good as it can?
"True dipole speakers, such as electrostatic panels, have long been noted for their near-ideal radiation patterns. They send very little sound to the sides, thereby minimizing side-wall reflections with short arrival times that tend to interfere with perception of the direct sound. Their strong rear radiation, however, produces a generous amount of ambience-enriching later-arriving reflections off the wall behind them."
which makes it sound like they view the rear wave as a "feature" that improves the speaker. Are there any people here who really think the rear wave is better just bouncing off of an untreated wall, or is Martin Logan just trying to make their product description sound as good as it can?