Hennie said:
I'm not entirely sure.
Maybe the poly suspension is (despite the material), also very stiff? Maybe it has more to do with the specific shape of the suspension than the material itself? Maybe the stiffer material of the diaphram reacts poorly to the suspension at resonance regardless? I believe that somewhere PaulW had a post on the distortion for 18Sound drivers, one of which I believe utilized the titanium nitride diaphragm. A search here may provide you with more information.
ScottG said:
Correction, the Dayton is NOT the driver Tinitus was referring to, this one is:
http://www.parts-express.com/pe/sho...utm_campaign=Catalog 2009&orefer=Catalog_2009
Mentioned here:
http://www.jantzen-audio.com/html/oem.html
On the subjective issue - Music has emotion, many kinds of emotion and I presume that most out there, like me, wish to be involved in that emotion. Over many years I have read reviews and forum threads where a speaker measured well but was reguarded as flat and UNINVOLVING. Capitals intended.
Subjective comment is always worhtwhile especially when impressions are shared and not just an individual response
How do the instruments which we use in this hobby, or the programs, measure emotional involvement?
jamikl
Subjective comment is always worhtwhile especially when impressions are shared and not just an individual response
How do the instruments which we use in this hobby, or the programs, measure emotional involvement?
jamikl
jamikl said:
They can't and they shouldn't. Our measurements are objective not subjective and the two things are quite different. The subjective domain is that of the performance. On can and should have a subjective opinion of the performance - be that at a concert hall, the producers mixing desk or your home listening room.
But the delivery of that performance via a recording medium and a playback system is a fairly black and white thing - it's either an accurate facsimilty of the original or it's not. There isn't anything subjective about it.
The use of subjectivism in the evaluation of audio is and has been a huge mistake. It has led to a world were the scientific objective evaluation is ignored in favor of the highly fashion prone subjective. Had this not occured audio would not have spent years arguing about wire and the like and using subjective terms that can mean anything to anyone. In short an evaluation system that has no basis.
Hi David,
I found this measurement of a XT1086 with a BMS 4552. It looks like that the XT1086 is not that CD anymore in the top octave.
http://lscon.tripod.com/xt1086/SPL.jpg
(found here
Maybe a hint for what is wrong?
I have some CD-Horns too (HR9040a + Fostex D-450, Il like 'em with foam), and even though they were EQ flat to 16 Khz (my hearing stops at 17 Khz) it didn't sparkle at the top as much as I liked.
So i thought of adding a supertweeter. Alll tweeters I had a the time did not only add sparkle, but also the in-your-face "sizzle" that drives Dr Geddes nuts, too.
Since all Tweeters I had were of the beaming type, I got me some Beyma CP-21f slot tweeters. Which now gives me just what I was looking for.
I for one would go looking for the tweeter that suits your taste best. But if you really want to stick to a Mid-High-WG then I would start looking at the WG for the fault and not the driver.
Greetings
Danny
I found this measurement of a XT1086 with a BMS 4552. It looks like that the XT1086 is not that CD anymore in the top octave.
http://lscon.tripod.com/xt1086/SPL.jpg
(found here
Maybe a hint for what is wrong?
I have some CD-Horns too (HR9040a + Fostex D-450, Il like 'em with foam), and even though they were EQ flat to 16 Khz (my hearing stops at 17 Khz) it didn't sparkle at the top as much as I liked.
So i thought of adding a supertweeter. Alll tweeters I had a the time did not only add sparkle, but also the in-your-face "sizzle" that drives Dr Geddes nuts, too.
Since all Tweeters I had were of the beaming type, I got me some Beyma CP-21f slot tweeters. Which now gives me just what I was looking for.
I for one would go looking for the tweeter that suits your taste best. But if you really want to stick to a Mid-High-WG then I would start looking at the WG for the fault and not the driver.
Greetings
Danny
gedlee said:
"it's either an accurate facsimilty of the original or it's not."
What is accuracy? Even if it's in relation to the source/media and not the event, are we capable of *determining* what is fully accurate? And even if we can determine what is fully accurate - can we reproduce that?
The reality is that our current level of sound reproduction is at best a series of compromises. What "formula" represents the *least* compromised is an on-going topic, and is still HIGHLY subjective - and it may not even be marketable if we could make an agreement on sound quality (..there are of course a myriad of other concerns for commercial acceptance).
As for "subjectivism's" use: its a by-product of reality. Nor is it necessarily a "mistake", people *like* different things and they like fashion. "One size does NOT fit all".
Consider that even if we could re-create something perfect to the source, that we might not want that. (..kinda reminds me of the "perfect world" scenario in the Matrix trilogy.
)Audio Reproduction's history harmed by "subjectivism"? Au contraire.
Intellectually it "sparks" controversy - which "sparks".., which "sparks".., which "sparks".., and often results in new theories and experimentation. -And yes, in many instances the use of the scientific method to test those theories (..occasionally even with peer academic review).
Of course if there were no continuing market for various sound reproduction items, there probably wouldn't be much interest or capital for such pursuits. *Funding* is an ever-present issue to technological development. "Subjectivism" tends to fuel economic interest.
From an alternate perspective..
Consider the THD "wars" of the 70's, spurred on by research to reduce THD (..and used as a means to differentiate competing products in the hope of making them more marketable). Of course the reality was (and still is), that intense focus (and application) on that one attribute did not result in better - SUBJECTIVE reproduction, *CONTRARY* TO THE "SUBJECTIVISM" OF THE TIME.
Hi dazydee,
That tripod image link doesn't seem to bring anything up.
Hi Earl,
I actually fully support your position that speakers should sound of "nothing" but the source.
I don't believe we are there yet (although I haven't heard everything!! and I haven't heard the Summas).
It seems we are faced with at least a couple of choices:
-"learn" to like the objectively most correct (whatever that means- maybe we could call it the Geddes principle, said in good faith).
-accept that the "objectively correct" only applies to selected parameters, here and now. THD was once a crucially important objective parameter. We may likewise decide (subjectivity?) in the future that other holy cows are not so holy afterall, and parameters that maybe we can't measure well now will reveal more of the objective picture. Maybe the pursuit of the objective is asymptotic in nature- we'll never quite be there. Maybe we will. Maybe we are there now? Maybe we're not there yet? If we are, everything is fine, and we can all go home- with some Summas!!! If we're not... how do we decide amongst the different options that aren't quite there yet?
David
That tripod image link doesn't seem to bring anything up.
Hi Earl,
I actually fully support your position that speakers should sound of "nothing" but the source.
I don't believe we are there yet (although I haven't heard everything!! and I haven't heard the Summas).
It seems we are faced with at least a couple of choices:
-"learn" to like the objectively most correct (whatever that means- maybe we could call it the Geddes principle, said in good faith).
-accept that the "objectively correct" only applies to selected parameters, here and now. THD was once a crucially important objective parameter. We may likewise decide (subjectivity?) in the future that other holy cows are not so holy afterall, and parameters that maybe we can't measure well now will reveal more of the objective picture. Maybe the pursuit of the objective is asymptotic in nature- we'll never quite be there. Maybe we will. Maybe we are there now? Maybe we're not there yet? If we are, everything is fine, and we can all go home- with some Summas!!! If we're not... how do we decide amongst the different options that aren't quite there yet?
David
David
Quite perceptive!!
Are we there? Not quite. Are we getting closer? Absolutely. Do we know more now than we did before? Most certainly. I would not even have said ten years ago that we could evaluate a speaker on numbers alone, but today I think that the numbers are more reliable than the subjective impressions.
It IS an asymptotic situation - we get closer and closer, but we will never get there. The main take-away point for me, is that we now know that measurements CAN tell us what works, speaker design IS a science, and the days of the "black art" are gone.
The science of audio has come a long way even though the practice has not. The audio community needs to become better educated on what matters and what doesn't and, most importantly, how to evaluate speakers both objectively and subjectively.
The focus on emotion in a listening session is completely misleading as it puts aspects of the performance into the loudspeaker evaluation. Loudspeakers are emotionless devices and emotions have no place in their evaluation.
Quite perceptive!!
Are we there? Not quite. Are we getting closer? Absolutely. Do we know more now than we did before? Most certainly. I would not even have said ten years ago that we could evaluate a speaker on numbers alone, but today I think that the numbers are more reliable than the subjective impressions.
It IS an asymptotic situation - we get closer and closer, but we will never get there. The main take-away point for me, is that we now know that measurements CAN tell us what works, speaker design IS a science, and the days of the "black art" are gone.
The science of audio has come a long way even though the practice has not. The audio community needs to become better educated on what matters and what doesn't and, most importantly, how to evaluate speakers both objectively and subjectively.
The focus on emotion in a listening session is completely misleading as it puts aspects of the performance into the loudspeaker evaluation. Loudspeakers are emotionless devices and emotions have no place in their evaluation.
gedlee said:
To me, audio design is artisans/craftsman work, a practical education with a touch of artwork, and a lot of theory, that could take a lifetime just to learn only half of it
Seems to me that the exstreme difficulty of audio design is excactly because its NOT just a matter of numbers
Basic construction may be, but evaluating the end product isnt
If it was just a matter of numbers, there would be a lot more good products out there
About whether emotions have a place in evaluation
Well, I sure think it does
I evaluate lots of adjustment on speakers
If the listening event gets emotionless, over time, its just very boring, and music sounds just completely pointless
When that happens, know something has to be done
When Im on the right track theres no doubt that emotions are involved
My speakers are only approved if they trigger emotions, when listening to music
And when they do, even listening to a news speaker or radio host is a joy, and an interesting experience
If it doesnt happen, its only boring
Its not something the speakers are doing as such, on its own
I agree with you on that
But when right, its only capeable of revealing all the different shades that triggers emotions
Simply put, ALL of the signal slips through, unharmed
Well, ofcourse not all of it, but enough fore the brain to rekognise whats important to perceive the sound as natural, and fore real
To me, emotions are THE ultimate way of evaluation
In evaluation of audio equipment, I dont see how emotions can be ignored, as emotions are what makes music enjoyable
True objectivity is just the first step of subjectivity
Objectivity on its own, is just meaningless
gedlee said:
As seems are those who have built them
Its not the approach I was questioning, but the statement about subjectivity having no place in evaluation
I dont see anything wrong with subjectivity
Based on objectivity, it can be controlled, to being honest and fair, as can be emotions
I honestly cannot comprehend why some people think we are just stupid human beings, with no control over our brain, and that we are not to be trusted in any way
But this thread surely went off the path
Good thread with some great opinions that Im learning from.
Subjectivity vs Objectivity debate aside
There seems to be a great interest in Waveguides over the last couple of months, from the econo-waveguide to other sites talking about building very high sensitivity speakers.
Some of the points raised in this thread explaining the difference between Horn or waveguide designs vs dome designs make sense to me so thank you to all that posted opinion on it.
It seems that the 18sound waveguide is the only option close to what Geddes sells?
Subjectivity vs Objectivity debate aside
There seems to be a great interest in Waveguides over the last couple of months, from the econo-waveguide to other sites talking about building very high sensitivity speakers.
Some of the points raised in this thread explaining the difference between Horn or waveguide designs vs dome designs make sense to me so thank you to all that posted opinion on it.
It seems that the 18sound waveguide is the only option close to what Geddes sells?
doug20 said:
The fact is that the contour is not that close and without a foam plug (which no one else can sell) its "not even close".
I think that the interest in waveguides comes about because after decades of poor sounding devices, they have come of age into the realm of audiophile devices with superb sound quality (at least some of them,)
tinitus said:
As seems are those who have built them
Its not the approach I was questioning, but the statement about subjectivity having no place in evaluation
First, thats not what I said. I said that subjective opinions were unstable. There are techniques that work, but without SOME controls in place, they are very unreliable.
tinitus said:
This is where I disagree, as will any psychologist that I know of. We want to think that we are in control of our brains, but the opposite is, unfortunately, the more accurate statement. This has been proven over and over again. As I said, there are ways to "control" the situation, but believing that you can do this through just your "will" power is just deluded wishful thinking.
tinitus said:
I know psychologists too
They mostly think we are stupid, and in the end THEY are the daft ones
You know I've met quite a few psychologists and psychiatrists (..though not for personal reasons).
And at least with respect to the psychologists - everyone without exception had some sort of personal emotional problem. I've even talked to a few about this (after the fact), and they agreed with my assessment that perhaps the most significant reason for their chosen profession was to diagnose their own problems.
(..not the case with psychiatrists - there I've found a "full-range" of personality-types, mostly "stable" ones.)
doug20 said:Good thread with some great opinions that Im learning from.
Subjectivity vs Objectivity debate aside
There seems to be a great interest in Waveguides over the last couple of months, from the econo-waveguide to other sites talking about building very high sensitivity speakers.
Some of the points raised in this thread explaining the difference between Horn or waveguide designs vs dome designs make sense to me so thank you to all that posted opinion on it.
Sounds like you should search on LeCleach threads
This is one I would like to try
Attachments
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.