noah katz said:
In fact this is my guess too. At HF the direct radiator is beaming very sharply which basically puts the listener into the direct field, much like listening to nearfield monitors. There is no reverberation because the direct sound is so much greater than the reverberant sound. This will tend to increase the "intelligability" or maybe what is being called "detail". There are no reflections to "muck up the works". If you like this effect then fine, but I have come to dislike it very much and as such I find 1" dome tweeters undesirable because of this. Then there is the fact that a highly directional tweeter only allows for a very small singular listening spot.
This is in response to post #42:
If so, would this beaming also increase listening fatigue? I always thought that one got the impression of more detail ("false detail" so to speak) and more listening fatigue because domes have higher 4th and 5th order distortion. It a popular explanation for this issue, but tests are lacking.
Others claim that domes and ribbons have faster energy decay and that this explains why they have more detail. Again, no tests to support this.
If so, would this beaming also increase listening fatigue? I always thought that one got the impression of more detail ("false detail" so to speak) and more listening fatigue because domes have higher 4th and 5th order distortion. It a popular explanation for this issue, but tests are lacking.
Others claim that domes and ribbons have faster energy decay and that this explains why they have more detail. Again, no tests to support this.
Listener Fatigue has never been quantified to any extent that I know of so I'm not sure how it would interact with the beam width concepts. As to a dome having more higher order nonlinearity, I guess that would depend on the dome because I don't see anything inherent in the design that would cause this. "Popular explainations" for things are usually not very accurate.
Domes and ribbons having faster energy decay is again a guess because there is no reason that a compression driver would necessarily be any worse in this context, nor is it incontestable that this matters at all.
Domes and ribbons having faster energy decay is again a guess because there is no reason that a compression driver would necessarily be any worse in this context, nor is it incontestable that this matters at all.
A dome tweeter has really wide dispersion and beam width is invesely proportional to frequency. Cabinet edges act as sound sources too, resulting in a very complex radiation pattern.
An XT1086 has essentially uniform and narrow dispersion in the passband.
The tail that you hear and you call "detail" with a dome tweeter is actually the reverberation of all the off-axis sound produced by the tweeter on the room. People get used to that -actually dirty- sound and associate it with quality.
Do a comparison outdoors, far from walls and with no ceilings that can reflect sound, and there won't be much difference.
An XT1086 has essentially uniform and narrow dispersion in the passband.
The tail that you hear and you call "detail" with a dome tweeter is actually the reverberation of all the off-axis sound produced by the tweeter on the room. People get used to that -actually dirty- sound and associate it with quality.
Do a comparison outdoors, far from walls and with no ceilings that can reflect sound, and there won't be much difference.
D OB G said:
..its not to surprising, different materials tend to sound different - even if the basic operation is nearly identical.
(Note to those contemplating purchase of the 18Sound.. near its fs, because of rigid diaphragm and surround, this driver will distort a LOT more than the mylar-based B&C driver.)
I wouldn't be at all surprised that once the suspension has "worked in" on that particular driver that the sound is *more detailed* than the Esotar (..at least when compared in a similar waveguide and eq'ed appropriately).
BTW, the "cloned" Esotar Tinitus was referring to is the ever popular Dayton 1 1/4 inch Silk tweeter (..though likely with some chamber modifications and a slightly different face plate). It is a higher distortion design, but it is NOT a clone of the Esotar (..which has a more extended low freq. response among other things.) Note that there are also 2 versions of the Esotar, one is "silky" like the Dayton driver, the other newer model looks more like its made of Nomex.
Around here the DE250 cost 2/3 of the NSD1095N
But differense may be less over there
Anyway, one is poly cone, the other titanium
What I notice when reading about the 18sound is its short throat opening, which might be significant
Could be interesting to compare it with new cheaper ND1018/20/30
Or maybe also against new RCF ND350/550, one mylar cone, other titanium, all else seem the same
Theres a cheap CD with diaphragm and suspension surround in one piece, but cant remember which, but could be interesting
Ok Scott, I had to read a bit back about the ESOTAR
All I know about the ORIGINAL Esotar is that everyone has praised it highly, being very smooth and nice on the ears, and noone seem to have made any complains so far, but way too expencive fore most
Seems like new models may be different, like you say
But differense may be less over there
Anyway, one is poly cone, the other titanium
What I notice when reading about the 18sound is its short throat opening, which might be significant
Could be interesting to compare it with new cheaper ND1018/20/30
Or maybe also against new RCF ND350/550, one mylar cone, other titanium, all else seem the same
Theres a cheap CD with diaphragm and suspension surround in one piece, but cant remember which, but could be interesting
Ok Scott, I had to read a bit back about the ESOTAR
All I know about the ORIGINAL Esotar is that everyone has praised it highly, being very smooth and nice on the ears, and noone seem to have made any complains so far, but way too expencive fore most
Seems like new models may be different, like you say
The 18Sound is titanium nitride.. quite different than titanium.
Physically more similar to Be. ..and yeah, I think its almost double the price here vs. the B&C driver while having less usable bandwidth.
I've heard the original Esotar in several designs - its a good tweeter. It doesn't have as much high freq. detail as a good (non-reinforced) ribbon however. The ubiquitous Arum Cantus g2si for instance has more hi freq. detail and presence than the Esotar (..better horizontal dispersion as well). I've never heard the newer Esotar.
Of course the Esotar can't even come close to the spl's of decent compression driver with horn. (..and it also isn't as dynamic/forceful sounding.. though IMO that isn't necessarily a bad thing.)
Physically more similar to Be. ..and yeah, I think its almost double the price here vs. the B&C driver while having less usable bandwidth.I've heard the original Esotar in several designs - its a good tweeter. It doesn't have as much high freq. detail as a good (non-reinforced) ribbon however. The ubiquitous Arum Cantus g2si for instance has more hi freq. detail and presence than the Esotar (..better horizontal dispersion as well). I've never heard the newer Esotar.
Of course the Esotar can't even come close to the spl's of decent compression driver with horn. (..and it also isn't as dynamic/forceful sounding.. though IMO that isn't necessarily a bad thing.)
Sorry JoshK.
More details (the blanket statement reflected the overwhelming preference, and it is only my (and my wife's!) preference after all).
Two points: the DEQX equalises out ripples in the responses of both drivers, and the geometry of both 18sound components are optimised to fit together (emergence angles e.t.c.).
The 18sound is more detailed generally e.g. intelligibility.
The 18sound has more extreme HF detail (even though both drivers have enough headroom to be equalised flat to 20 kHz).
Both have good dynamics, no sense of compression or distortion, but, and this is something that I find very difficult to describe, the 18sound is more "compelling". It finds something more than just detail in the music (I'm not into HT).
I can find areas where the Esotar is better than the B&C (on the suboptimal 18sound waveguide!). I can't find areas with the 18sound though.
David
More details (the blanket statement reflected the overwhelming preference, and it is only my (and my wife's!) preference after all).
Two points: the DEQX equalises out ripples in the responses of both drivers, and the geometry of both 18sound components are optimised to fit together (emergence angles e.t.c.).
The 18sound is more detailed generally e.g. intelligibility.
The 18sound has more extreme HF detail (even though both drivers have enough headroom to be equalised flat to 20 kHz).
Both have good dynamics, no sense of compression or distortion, but, and this is something that I find very difficult to describe, the 18sound is more "compelling". It finds something more than just detail in the music (I'm not into HT).
I can find areas where the Esotar is better than the B&C (on the suboptimal 18sound waveguide!). I can't find areas with the 18sound though.
David
gedlee said:
..what, you have no personal subjective opinion either? (..no, no ..you've stated before that you, and others, prefer your design with "foam" - *that* is one of many subjective opinions you have claimed.) And don't you use subjective opinions to *advertise* your own product?
News flash Earl: you are an audiophile.
(..seek immediate professional counseling.)
I'm sorry Earl.
I don't claim to be an audiophile at all, but I might claim to be a "musicophile".
You say, if I am not mistaken, that certain objective measurements are important, and others are not. Attend to the important objective issues.
But if I'm going to listen to a bit of paper, or titanium nitride, or whatever, flapping around, I want to enjoy it.
I prefer Sir John Barbirolli's version of Mahler's Fifth with the New Philharmonia Orchestra to any other I have heard (and in comparison to the two live accounts I have heard of that symphony).
I just helplessly admit that I am not an objective measuring machine. I listen to music because I like it, and if one transducer, as part of a system, gives a more enjoyable account of the music, if I have the option, I will take it.
Such a transducer is most likely to be one that meets your objectively important criteria, but we would all be using the same loudspeaker if it was as easy as that, wouldn't we?
David
I don't claim to be an audiophile at all, but I might claim to be a "musicophile".
You say, if I am not mistaken, that certain objective measurements are important, and others are not. Attend to the important objective issues.
But if I'm going to listen to a bit of paper, or titanium nitride, or whatever, flapping around, I want to enjoy it.
I prefer Sir John Barbirolli's version of Mahler's Fifth with the New Philharmonia Orchestra to any other I have heard (and in comparison to the two live accounts I have heard of that symphony).
I just helplessly admit that I am not an objective measuring machine. I listen to music because I like it, and if one transducer, as part of a system, gives a more enjoyable account of the music, if I have the option, I will take it.
Such a transducer is most likely to be one that meets your objectively important criteria, but we would all be using the same loudspeaker if it was as easy as that, wouldn't we?
David
D OB G said:
I have said many times before that I cannot see how loudspeakers, as they get better and better, cannot converge on all sounding the same - just like the source. They may be different designs and different manufacturers, but they have to all sound the same, which is no sound character of their own at all.
I'm not saying that subjectivism has no place, but it has to be a confirmation of the objective measurements. If you cannot measure what you hear then you are mesauing the wrong things, and if you like that which is not objectively validated as accurate then you are not seeking "fidelity" or "truth", but some magical and mystical "feeling" that you are not likely to ever find. Marketers will love you!
gedlee said:
Round and round we go..
It would be nice if we could make a confirmation (or not) of subjective responses with objective measurements - but to come anywhere close to accuracy for such an assessment is often at best impractical. This goes back to that "hobby" aspect..
What you want requires:
1. Proper measurement equipment/location and expertise obtaining measurements.
2. Proper controls/measurement of subjective responses.
3. Proper analysis of information from 1 & 2.
1. Can be difficult.. not necessarily to get measurements, but to get measurements that all can agree are "good enough".
2. Almost no one does this - including professionals, and for those few that do, rarely is it done well. Various *controls* rarely go far enough to be effective (..again, that all could agree on).
3. Even if you can pass "hurdles" 1 & 2, it isn't certain that *anyone* will be able to make a correlation. Sure, it would be nice to have the opportunity to attempt it, but even if we had that opportunity it doesn't mean that we would necessarily be accurate in the analysis.
All of the above isn't to say that people shouldn't attempt it if they want to, but rather that as a hobby 99.9999+% would not spend the kind of time and resources necessary to provide what you would require ("..has to be").
To put an even finer point on the "hobby" aspect is, (as D OB G has stated), that the audiophile hobby is usually A SECONDARY HOBBY.
For most the real purpose is to have a better listening experience with most of their playback material, NOT NECESSARILY A MORE "ACCURATE" LISTENING EXPERIENCE. The primary hobby then is musical listening enjoyment for that particular individual (and perhaps their immediate family members).
....
Ok, so why all the above (yet again)?
"Dropping" statements in another person's thread like:
"Who needs measurements when we have audiophiles!!"
- Is nothing more than a cheap shot implying that the person's subjective comments have no worth. It's a tacky demeaning post in a "forum" where most participants actually want such comments.
..now IMO, the occasional tacky cheap-shot is funny.
But, if you use it to often it looses it's humor ..AND it really needs to be appropriate for the overall thread. Just from the first post of this thread it was clear that it's specifically about a basic subjective comment, so using it here.. not so funny. This is especially true when you consider that most of the subjective comments were actually "demanded" by another poster. 
One final note:
.. while the basic premise here of subjective-to-objective critical assessment is untenable for most hobbyists (as mentioned above), it actually has little to do with subjective comments.
(..yup, read that again.)
Each subjective comment has an implied caveat:
When someone subjectively describes how "x" is better than "y", they are NOT actually stating that "x" is better than "y".
What they are stating is that for themselves personally (or others who have direct personal experience with very similar results), that at the time of auditioning and for the likely foreseeable future - they currently believe that "x" is better than "y".
The obvious (or not so obvious) caveat then is: it may have no direct application to others. i.e. "your mileage may vary" or "YMMV". But again, it *should* be obvious, so it's usually redundant to use such a caveat.
This goes on all the time on a forum like this.
A requirement for measurements actually holds no significant meaning when placed in this context. Here, a veracity "check", (measurement offered as proof), is only meaningful *if* the commenter is actually lying, and what would be the point? (..are they selling something? This poster isn't.)
Basic conclusion then:
Subjective comments are what they are - don't try to "morph" them into absolutes and require proof for that absolute statement (..that never existed).
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.