In all fairness to Dave and the fullrange afficianados, enclosure design is relevant to the entire frequency spectrum since these are fullrange. These guys have been at this for a while using their experience and ears as a primary tool of measure.......they do deserve a bit of credit for what they've accomplished so far.
Just as often, what measures good doesn't always sound good. And subjectively, these listening evaluations aren't any more credible than the subjective opinions of audiophiles......all things being equal.
One has to decide just how far they're willing to leap with XRK.
and for the record, i'm not a fullrange fan but for different reasons in that frequencies above 5khz can't be properly reproduced by a driver larger than 1". They're a compromise at best.
Just as often, what measures good doesn't always sound good. And subjectively, these listening evaluations aren't any more credible than the subjective opinions of audiophiles......all things being equal.
One has to decide just how far they're willing to leap with XRK.
and for the record, i'm not a fullrange fan but for different reasons in that frequencies above 5khz can't be properly reproduced by a driver larger than 1". They're a compromise at best.
Credit to planet10 enclosure design and painted dots it looks really good, but how can i know if what their ears used as measurement tool and they think sound good will sound good to me.
Surprised the political message about measurements and subjectivity , how should we develop anything if we can't compare device to device and get a hold on what is real acoustic neutral reference and true replicated transient waveform.
I tell you 25 years ago i had a Japanese 50Hp bike and a friend had a 50Hp Harley Davidson and every time i rode his bike i thought it was much quicker than my own, but if we started a clock and measured them or took a race my bike won always, that's a example we need measurements to have a reference.
Last edited:
I disagree with this. If a speaker measures well in the requisite measurements, I know it will sound good and be able to play all genre's equally well.
What are the requisite measurements?
They are inter-related of course by Fourier transform etc. but the sweep performed by REW is not a simple single scan - but multiple scans with time-offsets are simultaneously collected and processed to extract things like spectral decay and wavelet info.
These are my personal goals or requirements for a great sounding speaker:
- flat frequency response (+/- 2dB) and bass and HF extension
- clean non-ringing impulse response
- At usual listening volume (circa 85dB), have acceptably low harmonic distortion not greater than -40dB for any harmonic up to 5th (where applicable) from 300Hz to 10kHz. From 50Hz to 300Hz below -20dB
- smooth and close to flat (+/- 30 deg) phase response over range 600Hz to 6kHz, ideally flat over 100Hz to 15kHz
- be able to play a large dynamic range of 50dB
- close to a right triangle step response, no inverted leading edge spike, no mis-aligned timing between drivers
- CSD that doesn't have long tails at any frequency, and preferably have decays under 1ms from 500Hz to 20kHz
- ability to reproduce a square wave
Very few speakers can do all of the above measurements well. Any speaker that can do all of this, I guarantee it will sound great.
The first 4 items are probably 80% of the speaker's sound quality for me. The remaining ones have to do with ability to play transients correctly. Given two speakers with equivelent flat response, dynamic range, low HD, the transient perfect speaker will always sound better and more like live music.
I agree to that, I can think of many commercial high priced speakers that don't do that well with some of those points. But what does highly regarded mean exactly? Who were those people judging that?
I often read, that's an excellent speaker for xxxx (name your preference). But in fact, get that list from X right and it will do all genres right. And of course you need to keep an eye on the room, in fact, consider it as one, the room and speakers. Let them together make the magic come out of the music. There are no magic drivers... Only good ones, bad ones and everything in between.
Last edited:
mayhem13,
Isn't that why we measure and especially because we can nowadays compared to old school salesmen that tell you anything to push and sell the product so they can pay the rent.
What is it you want to tell, is it that if planet10 drivers don't measure well or sound as good as other drivers at 0,5 meters distance in next comparison round that they voiced so by purpose but will be better that the other drivers in any room and throw perfect linear acoustics directivity and power response.
Am a bit curious in method how yourself base/judge and develop/improve on diy build speakers, judge commercial ones and how to base what true reference is, do you use measurements.
Isn't that why we measure and especially because we can nowadays compared to old school salesmen that tell you anything to push and sell the product so they can pay the rent.
What is it you want to tell, is it that if planet10 drivers don't measure well or sound as good as other drivers at 0,5 meters distance in next comparison round that they voiced so by purpose but will be better that the other drivers in any room and throw perfect linear acoustics directivity and power response.
Am a bit curious in method how yourself base/judge and develop/improve on diy build speakers, judge commercial ones and how to base what true reference is, do you use measurements.
No different than subjectively preferring an apple to an orange based on taste........both are still classified as fruit.
If you can't get past the final purpose of what we're doing here and that's the pleasurable experience of listening to music.....well you've lost your way somewhere on the journey. I simply can't stress that enough.
......and psychologically there is WAY more involved that what your ears are telling your brain to elicit a pleasurable response. Audible memory plays a HUGE role here in suggestive bias.
Perception is everything!.....and a very difficult concept to understand. You'd have to do the research yourself to lend this statement credibility.
I base my criteria on experience and knowledge. I've been a successful live and recording engineer as well as a session musician for my entire adult life. What that's worth to you is beyond my control.
If you can't get past the final purpose of what we're doing here and that's the pleasurable experience of listening to music.....well you've lost your way somewhere on the journey. I simply can't stress that enough.
......and psychologically there is WAY more involved that what your ears are telling your brain to elicit a pleasurable response. Audible memory plays a HUGE role here in suggestive bias.
Perception is everything!.....and a very difficult concept to understand. You'd have to do the research yourself to lend this statement credibility.
I base my criteria on experience and knowledge. I've been a successful live and recording engineer as well as a session musician for my entire adult life. What that's worth to you is beyond my control.
Yes, Wesayso hit the nail on the head "highly regarded by who?" I went to a listening room recently to listen to several highly regarded speakers: B&W 802 diamond and Sonus Faber Olympica 3's - powered by several hundreds of pounds of heavily heatsinked McIntosh amps and boutique preamps and DACs. No doubt they sounded good with exceptional dynamic range, clear highs, low harmonic distortion, and probably fairly flat frequency response - although I don't think 802 D's are within +/- 2dB. However, something was amiss. Most people would not know it because they don't know what they don't know. These speakers are all essentially flat front baffle (not stepped) and use passive XO's so are not even close to quasi transient perfect. Look at the step response of most highly regarded conventional multiways with flat baffles and you see something that does not even resemble the transient time-resolved signal of the source material. It's a mess actually. Once you hear a live recorded jazz trio on a transient perfect speaker and then one that is not - there is a large difference in realism of the attack and decay of transients and how aligned they are to be a coherent pulse. Most people don't know what a transient perfect speaker sounds like because they have never heard one. So when I listened to these highly regarded speakers - they just did not move me viscerally like a quasi transient perfect speaker that I can build for a fraction of the price. Sure, I don't have 16 coats of hand rubbed lacquer applied to my speakers and they don't weigh 200 lbs - but to my ears, these highly regarded speakers fell short.
Last edited:
I agree to that, I can think of many commercial high priced speakers that don't do that well with some of those points. But what does highly regarded mean exactly? Who were those people judging that?
I often read, that's an excellent speaker for xxxx (name your preference). But in fact, get that list from X right and it will do all genres right. And of course you need to keep an eye on the room, in fact, consider it as one, the room and speakers. Let them together make the magic come out of the music. There are no magic drivers... Only good ones, bad ones and everything in between.
In your first statement, you've already revealed your bias against 'high priced' items. It's difficult to continue honest and gainful discussion under those conditions. Genre is also a significant bias. The complexity of the piece is more appropriate. Can you show me the measurment suite that differentiates between the two?
Please excuse my replies as they may seem arrogant, but I cross this same bridge every day in my creative career. I can only share what extensive experience has shown me..........take from it what you will but please don't be insulted as that is not my intention.
It's the list I described earlier. You can measure all those (except square wave) with REW.
-FR
-IR
-HD
-DR
-Phase
-SR
-CSD
-Square wave
Regarding IR, SR, and square wave, the Dunlavy SC-IV is one speaker that can do it. Wesayso's Twin Towers is another and even better.
http://www.stereophile.com/content/...eaker-measurements-part-3#FQchbsat3tbOgLfm.97
Here is SR for SC-IV:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Here is SR for B&W 802D:
http://www.stereophile.com/content/bw-802d-loudspeaker-measurements#y8L8T5SQqIHxjjVE.97
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Does that step look like it will faithfully reproduce a step transient?
Last edited:
Tom Danley in past shared record speaker playing a track, then play the recorded track and record again and continue circle until unlistenable. The day ones new diy build or new commercial speaker can take a circle more there is progress.
Its a time consuming task and not funny to hear the truth revealed already after first take but think test is some scientific grade.
I've read enough of your posts to know your intentions, don't worry. The same goes for my ramblings here. No ill intent.
I have no problem with high priced items or speakers. None at all. Except when they do not deliver what one should be able to expect at that price level.
Lots of people look at this the other way around, expecting something to be bad because the price is low. I do not judge on price at all. I do judge though.
There are indeed a lot of factors at play when listening to audio. The human factor can't be ruled out. We do not hear like microphones do. But that works in our advantage if you know how to use that piece of information.
A driver with a ringing top end is always going to be a driver with a ringing top end. But people may like it. Or even love it. But it won't be true to the original signal. There are a lot of factors at play and to find a balance is an exhausting task, but not impossible.
I've used REW as a measurement suite. But I had to look long and hard to find my answers there. With the introduction of frequency dependent windows things got a little better though. I'm charmed with what I've seen from APL_TDA so far. That displays what I was after much more clear than any view of REW ever could.
You speak of complexity in music to counter my genre comment. Complex music is pretty rough stuff for any small full ranger to play by themselves. In a Fast setup things get a little better. But it remains difficult for small drivers at a reasonable level.
But by genre I actually meant what I said, and nothing more. Get the speaker plus room to act good in the list X gave earlier and you can play a wide variety of music and enjoy it. Often people are quick to blame recordings for things that don't sound well. It couldn't be their speakers (not even thinking about their room).
Don't just look at FR or any other part by itself. They are all important. And that simple impulse does tell us what we hear, believe it or not. But do not stare at that pulse alone, pick apart what it is telling us. The basic IR view says next to nothing about bass response. It's mainly showing high frequency information, but that doesn't mean that info isn't there. You need to dig in to get what it's telling you. If that simple IR wasn't telling you what you hear than no musical signal should ever sound right.
You read a lot of stories where people say: I EQ-ed my speakers flat and it sounded horrible. My reply would be: as it should. That's not the way to do it at all. That's not what you should be EQ-ing in the first place. Not unless you have an anechoic room at your disposal and even then I'd still do it differently. As drivers aren't perfect and some things cannot be fixed by EQ at all. You need to know where the trouble starts to have an idea how to prevent or fix it.
So to start with good measuring drivers makes perfect sense, there's less that needs fixing. That does not mean that many may like the added stuff that some drivers bring. Personally, I want to hear the recording. That's where the real magic is at in my opinion.
But that does not exclude we can measure our way to hear that recording even better. I trust my measurements more than my own ears. But I do listen to make decisions. But I do get tired and my mic doesn't have that problem. Hard to say I don't trust my ears, as I do trust them, I know what I hear, but I can get fooled by my ears. It's the "why" that's interesting. And that's where my focus is at. But I do not buy into the: we cannot measure everything we hear. I say: sure we can, but do we know enough to interpret the measurements the right way? Are we looking in the right place? I started looking at all places and found some very satisfying answers were right there in front of me. Proving that the impulse really does tell the story.
I actually tried that, in a room! Tom does it to judge his speakers. A room makes it a lot harder to do. You get to hear your room very well to even record it once and play it back on the same speakers.
Not something I'm going to repeat any time soon as it makes you very aware of your environment. 3 generations still did sound rather good though, I was actually proud of that. In a room I'll admit 4 generations is stretching it. At the listening position anyway.
Sorry X but the drivers behave completely differently when playing simultaneous multi tonal content and harmonics. The measurments you listed are a foundation BUT FAR ALL from the practical behavior of the driver.
Again.......this is all subjective anyways so what you or I believe can and will be different than Planet, Godzilla, and others. We won't be convincing anyone anytime soon. I can show you 50 accomplished mastering engineers of whom not one cares about any of this other than can he hear the details in the mix. Wanna measure a pair of NS-10's? Lol
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.