The test looks pretty good. google translated it for me sentence by sentence.
Thanks!
I wonder if there are more? If you've ever heard ADAM monitors, they seem to have a clarity others don't possess. Must be a reason for it. Anyone know of any tests that delineate what causes some speakers to sound clearer than other?
ADAM/Burmester both sound extremely clear and both use AMTs.... Never heard a dome do that b4.
Thanks!
I wonder if there are more? If you've ever heard ADAM monitors, they seem to have a clarity others don't possess. Must be a reason for it. Anyone know of any tests that delineate what causes some speakers to sound clearer than other?
ADAM/Burmester both sound extremely clear and both use AMTs.... Never heard a dome do that b4.
ADAM Audio GmbHI wonder if there are more? If you've ever heard ADAM monitors, they seem to have a clarity others don't possess. Must be a reason for it. Anyone know of any tests that delineate what causes some speakers to sound clearer than other?
Compare in Fig.5 the size of the moving area between the X-art diaphragm and a dome tweeter. Which should produce less distortion?
Rudolf
And of course it is as simple as this. Many people are obsessed with the need to point the finger of "blame" at the speaker, because it's the obvious thing, it's staring you in the face -- "I mean, it's gotta be the speaker's fault, I can hear they're not working right!!"
Decent experiments like this tell one what's going on, which is that there is no one single thing, one lone part of the system that determines the sound, it's the combination of everything. Scary stuff, but that's the way it is ... everyone has to "think outside the square" to make real progress ..
If you can see them in the distortion response, they have to be in the frequency response. But I agree, they might not be obvious. Sometimes they are hidden because only on-axis measurements were performed, in other times because the smoothing is to much.
Anyhow, this linked diploma thesis shows that all this is irrelevant. Equalize to the same frequency response, keep the distortion below audibility, and all depends on the directivity.
Yes, if listened to in an anechoic chamber. The next logical assumption would be that audible difference "depends on the directivity", as Baseballbat just stated.
In most cases people judge less interaction with the room walls as "clearer". In practical life "planar" tweeters tend to have more radiation area than domes, a different width/height-ratio, a waveguide in front and a flat surface. All this leads to a narrower radiation pattern in one or both directions.
Rudolf, I agree (or perhaps I understand your explanation better).
The ribbons I have are about 55mm x 10mm, an area which isnt very dissimilar to the typical dome radiating area. BUT vertical dispersion is much narrower, and I find they sound clearer, more distinct, perhaps due to less vertical reflection and hornloading.
That probably goes a long way to explaining why I could never learn to like the sound of those old Audax 10mm tweeters I used in my 1st build, many years ago.
The ribbons I have are about 55mm x 10mm, an area which isnt very dissimilar to the typical dome radiating area. BUT vertical dispersion is much narrower, and I find they sound clearer, more distinct, perhaps due to less vertical reflection and hornloading.
That probably goes a long way to explaining why I could never learn to like the sound of those old Audax 10mm tweeters I used in my 1st build, many years ago.
Last edited:
Yes, that's all, as long as the distortions stay low. Standard dome tweeters are better in this regards than most planar drivers, except some magnetostatics (B&G) and AMTs (not all, there are some bad designs out there). Earl would add something about short-time reflections, that they will distort the sound, too, especially at higher levels.
Many would say that kevlar cones perform well up to this point. Paper, on the other hand tends to give considerably, yet it is well damped and is often chosen for full range drivers. Although it can also bend at higher frequencies to effectively reduce the cone area, it is still more compliant to where it wants to be rather than to the position of the voice coil. It has also been my choice for cone material for midrange and low midrange since my first memories of considering it.
However lobing will form where wavelengths are smaller and even a well pistonic cone will have this issue. In considering the frequency response I expect you were thinking about the power response as this can bring the direct and reflected responses closer in character if the axis is chosen well, as well as tonally balancing the sound.
Again I agree, but not where harmonic distortion is the primary issue. When it has come to tuning FM stations, voicing valve amplifiers, choosing a type of resistor to use in an amp or anything similar, I've always preferred to have a level of even harmonic distortion commensurate with the prevailing odd order HD, even if it means higher distortion. Not an unusual discovery in audio but goes to show that these simple distortions are fairly benign (especially the lowest orders).
I've never used a dome tweeter in a way that I could live with. I've owned a couple of two inch dome midrange models (Arista butyl dome (I think), and a classic Phillips doped fabric) that weren't too bad as long as they weren't crossed to anything else. As with full range drivers they wouldn't do the top end well but they didn't do too badly either.
Last edited:
I thought the Toole studies showed wide dispersion as being clearer? Most people seem to say that narrow dispersion is however. Intuitively, narrow would seem like a better choice, but my intuition isn't the best. I remember Dr. Toole's book saying something about the ears getting a "second look" at the sound.
Of course it's still the speakers, some people's odd electronics/wiring fetishes notwithstanding. Things like frequency response, directivity, and so on.
I just had a thought about why speaker deficiencies are easy to discount by the ear/brain interface when the remainder of the system is working well, and that's because the acoustic source of speaker driver distortion can be pinpointed by the hearing mechanism as occurring at the plane of the speaker enclosure fronts, from the cues of reflections, etc, in the listening room. Whereas, recorded musical events occur well back from this position, from the acoustic perspective. Thus, the listening mind looks past, or beyond, the plane of driver distortion sound and can comfortably ignore it.
This is a similar process to how people can ignore the ticks and pops of LP playback, the auditory experience occurs in a different "space" ...
This is a similar process to how people can ignore the ticks and pops of LP playback, the auditory experience occurs in a different "space" ...
Last edited:
Yeah, and I'm still waiting for people to prove that my key chain isn't protecting us all from being wiped out by purple ninja Elephants.
I mean after all isn't it obvious that the sun rotates about the earth? I certainly don't see the earth moving and the sun clearly does.
Then there's all this "Earth is a sphere" nonsense.
So given all those other obviously false things, that those "scientists" and "fact" fetishists peddle, clearly you MUST be correct in rejecting the idea that the thing that IS ACTUALLY CREATING THE SOUND, can't possibly be the most important factor and that wires or power cords are clearly just as important.
You do understand that coming up with an idea is just the first step in developing a theory?
You have to also then gather evidence. Simply going "What if X causes Y" is not sufficient.
I would argue that IM distortion is a very important part of the equation. IM distortion, bearing no relation to the musical content, is more likely to offend the ear.
There are a lot of studies that say 'it's the speakers'.
Look here: ABX Double Blind Test Results: Power Amps
There's a lot there that says 'it's the speakers'.
Look here: ABX Double Blind Test Results: Power Amps
There's a lot there that says 'it's the speakers'.
An audio system is a device that reproduces sound, usually separated into a number of boxes. If you combine them into a single box, does that change the "equation"? I have a kitchen radio, and it squeaks and squawks at times, and the station fades in and out -- the most likely culprit is the tiny full range speaker then? A somewhat out there example, but pointing out that the last step in the chain is, well, the last step in the chain ...
Having just popped into my head, allow me some time to organise the university's resources ...
Jack, if the harmonic distortion is low, then the IM distortion is low, too. At least in most cases. Remember: there can't be IM distortion without harmonic distortion.
Of course you are right, and comparing speakers by multitone measurements gives good results, although I am not sure how to weight some of the difference: is high IM at 4 kHz more audible than high IM at 400 Hz? I don't know, but I assume it has something to do with the usual maksing effects, which are somehow related (but not the same) as the equal-loudness contours, and so I would say that the 4 kHz IMD is very important, while the 400 Hz IMD is not so audible. Maybe someone else can shed some light on it.
Of course you are right, and comparing speakers by multitone measurements gives good results, although I am not sure how to weight some of the difference: is high IM at 4 kHz more audible than high IM at 400 Hz? I don't know, but I assume it has something to do with the usual maksing effects, which are somehow related (but not the same) as the equal-loudness contours, and so I would say that the 4 kHz IMD is very important, while the 400 Hz IMD is not so audible. Maybe someone else can shed some light on it.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.