That be cautious of bs studies. Some of them are nothing more than snake oils.
Hi Keyser - yes it was definitely Koen. Slightly accentuated by the fact that the whole display area was raised on a platform of about 20cm and a lot of times I was on the lower level.
I wonder if this is a good example of the concrete scientific foundation you mention: I found these plots on the Gearslutz forum where a user made a measurement of the 8c versus the Kii 3.
What I found even more shocking than the flatness of your published response plots, was the similarity between the measured response plots of these two speakers.
Of course there are some very clear parallels between the two (the edge radius and dome tweeter with waveguide, although theirs uses a smaller stepped radius and what appears to be a slightly larger diaphragm), there are also a whole host of significant differences - size of the box, size of the main woofer, width of baffle, woofer with a slight waveguide, location of woofer and tweeter on the baffle, and the approach to low end reinforcement in particular.
It's more or less line for line. The only discrepancy seems to be in the amplitude of the ripples. If I didn't know better I would suggest they had to be using the same drivers - I think 100% of people who saw that plot would say 'these speakers are using the same drivers'. Maybe the tweeter is the same but the woofers/passive radiators clearly aren't.
Green is the 8c. I think. I'd have to go back to the thread and check though.
oooh, I don't know. I think the conclusion of studies (ok, at least one anyway) was that the NS-10 was chosen originally because of a low group delay, or a subjective appreciation of the effects of low group delay. And then at some point you had them because other studios did - common reference you can mix the same on (as long as you know their faults and have learned to mix on them to sound good on other speakers).
And apparently their response becomes more flat when placed on a mixing desk's meter bridge. .
The Yamaha NS10 Story |
PDF of a write-up of a study examining the NS-10.
Wasn't the origin of that practice someone - I thought Nile Rodgers - mixing a #1 hit on a pair, tissue paper over tweeters ?
How could you know? So there we go ...
DUT:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Impulse response of the tweeter with only the naked blue DXT-Waveguide (red graph) vs. the one with the green-yellowish saladbowl-pseudosphere added around the waveguide (green graph):
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
The impulse response with the spheroid is slightly more uniform than the one of the naked waveguide, especially @ 0.1ms.
Then the horizontal polar dispersions at -30° and 60° (T29)
Absolute values:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Differences between off-axis and 0°:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Everyone might draw their's own conclusions now. I have the impression of a slightly smoother off-axis-rsponse using the sphere, but it's basically a peanuts difference. Acutally I have chosen a 10"-diameter bowl for this first approach. Next iterative step will be the use of a slightly smaller bowl (7"-8" or so).
PS: There might be once a separate thread with a more in-depth presentation of this project.
Did you have one ear blocked and were listening in mono when coming to the conclusion that the character of the cello couldn't be reproduced?
Perhaps what is "the character" of the cello is more defined by the differences in tone between each ear, the stereo / chorusing/ phasing differences and their changes in time. Also a cellist moves a lot when playing so again part of that character is the movement in stereo.
And of course the cello is a wide and large instrument all resonating and moving and causing all sorts of changing stereo comb filtering and phasing from its different parts and you can hear the movement of the player. It is not a point source as the speaker is.
You would need then a set up that mimicked a multiple mic set up and your listening position would need to be in some way the same in relation to both the microphones and the speakers.
A better test would be to experience the cello by listening with one ear only (and somehow reducing any stereo bone conduction too!) and listening to the speaker in the same way, both at the same position as the original single mic.
But yep, all this says to me that there are serious deficiencies in recording and replay *set-up* that prevent the recreation of a live event and so it is a poor test of a speaker. Better then to conciously enjoy listening to the sound that is hitting each microphone in a very studio-technique-concious way, imagining that your ear is at one point under the lid of the grand piano (when focusing on the piano) and at another time at the bridge of a guitar (when focusing on the guitar) but all the while enjoying the constructed whole as something new, just a sound creation.
Or listen to binaural recordings with good in-ear headphones
I have read of other tests where speakers have successfully recreated an orchestra but the difference is that the audience is far enough away from the speakers/orchestra where each player (each represented by a speaker) is in effect a point source. And you have the interaction of the concert hall in both.
Those measurements of Kii3 and 8c show mainly room reflections because of long IR gating. Obviousy both are relatively flat on-axis (eq'd?) and have quite similar DI. Propably measured relatively close, less than 2m?
Here another one -mostly room effects seen... Gearslutz Pro Audio Community - View Single Post - Kii Three-Have you heard them?
Here another one -mostly room effects seen... Gearslutz Pro Audio Community - View Single Post - Kii Three-Have you heard them?
Hi Keyser - yes it was definitely Koen. Slightly accentuated by the fact that the whole display area was raised on a platform of about 20cm and a lot of times I was on the lower level.
I wonder if this is a good example of the concrete scientific foundation you mention: I found these plots on the Gearslutz forum where a user made a measurement of the 8c versus the Kii 3.
What I found even more shocking than the flatness of your published response plots, was the similarity between the measured response plots of these two speakers.
Of course there are some very clear parallels between the two (the edge radius and dome tweeter with waveguide, although theirs uses a smaller stepped radius and what appears to be a slightly larger diaphragm), there are also a whole host of significant differences - size of the box, size of the main woofer, width of baffle, woofer with a slight waveguide, location of woofer and tweeter on the baffle, and the approach to low end reinforcement in particular.
It's more or less line for line. The only discrepancy seems to be in the amplitude of the ripples. If I didn't know better I would suggest they had to be using the same drivers - I think 100% of people who saw that plot would say 'these speakers are using the same drivers'. Maybe the tweeter is the same but the woofers/passive radiators clearly aren't.
Green is the 8c. I think. I'd have to go back to the thread and check though.
Buff, Gearslutz... But It Yourself Audio... Gear drug addicts... Zap!
Yeah ... and that the "gear for gear sake" way of life sucks as an audiophile review at 6moons for the BoBos (*) on a rainy sunday...
F... them all!
YouTube
* Bourgeois & Bohemians
Last edited:
Thanks to Jacqueline Du Pré, Daniel Barenboim, and people like them...
F... the gear sluts!
You part of what you google for..