Zaph said:
Mmmm, isn't that ITSELF a subjective assesment?
BTW, though it may not be your personal opinion, (..and remember - it IS an opinion), there is quite a large bit of objective data to say that Stereophile-esque prose is in FACT worth more than either a picture or an actual set of distortion measurments (..concerning what people generally value for sound reproduction dissemination).
None of this is to suggest "ditching" objective measurments - but rather to realize that (in Stereophile-esque parlance), "the tail does not wag the dog".
..and that isn't even going into the issue of the "tail not comprising the dog".So strap on your waders, because you are hip deep in your own subjectivity my friend!
(BTW.. a week, we have to wait another week to see those measurements?
..And again, thank you VERY much for taking the time, effort, and expense to do those measurements - its MUCH appreciated by me, and I'm not ashamed to admit that is my subjective response. )
what are you talking about ? i mean, what and where is this objective data ?
i simply can't see how meanless prose relying only on narcissism and self satisfaction consumerism , or other more noble beliefs in this respect, like personal preference, can match up to measurements.
they are in fact limited , measurement method and all, but even, that's DATA, data you are free to interpret the way you want, even if it's a dumb way.
of course data can lie, i know that better than anybody working in sociology and statistics, but you will always have a fact, even if your interpretation is biased (wich i personally don't think is zaph case) rather than plain subjectivity, and if ACCURATE is your goal in audio, rather than voodoo.
they are facts indeed in measurements. Several psychosociological studies have shown that the satisfaction given by the fact of buying something prints itself in the limbical brain for durable time , and thus influences any "rational" thinking ( i mean neo cortexical) you may have about it thereafter.
simply put, someone who bought something may be the worst person to be objective about it's qualities.
even hardcore objectivists like zaph have subjective preferences (==> seas drivers , wich are clearly getting better comments, based on qualities that does not affect objective performance deeply ,like maniac build quality)
the worst thing is saying that measurements can't show it all , it's like saying senses shows it .
If that's true , earth is clearly a flat surface, no matter what all theses goddamn scientists can say, they are not into the true feeling of reality for sure.
of course measurements don't show it all, but they at least show something, where beliefs don't show anything else that where you are standing, sociologically speaking, in the audio crowd.
and if audio reproduction is evolving and getting more accurate, it's thanks to engineers, if you prefer the distorted and inaccurate sound coming through 20 years old speakers, fine, but remember they were created by engineers too, engineers who i think (that's an opinion !!) would rather be on the objectivist side today, being ******* happy to have measurement equipment to make better speakers.
an interresting thing is to see with measurements today is to see that motor design is clearly more a place of distortion improvement than cone design, even if the two are importants (not to say cone design is not important, quite the contrary, but the number of poly vs paper vs ceramic discussion overshows that enough) . intuitively, the cone is what is making sound, moving, and it's what you see when listening to a speaker ... this is why measurements are important, for not being fooled believing that earth is flat, and even subjectivists gentlemen like scottG (forgive me for categorizing you like this, it's for the sake of argument) recognize it in a way by giving credit to zaphs work
i don't mean to offend anyone with this post, and i guess it wont interrest a lot of people, i guess it's just necessary for someone like me who almost never post , and always read everything
Zaph said:
Well, let me ask the guy who borrowed them to me if he minds if I cut the dustcaps off his $500 woofers. I'll get back to you on that.
Regarding the Audio Technology model number 18 H 52 13 06 SD (I think 13 and 06 are reversed).
Seems more like a $300 USD part. And more of a mid than woofer by way of the reduced X max from other 52mm VC Quenze parts offered.
From what I gleened from price lists at the following sites
http://www.audiotechnology.dk
http://www.e-speakers.com/
madisound has a 77 mm VC version for around $500 USD tho.
Anyhow, more than I would consider paying for a single driver. Look forward to the IMD data from Zaph! Should be interesting around 105 -110 dB levels if he goes that high esp if he got hold of the $500 SK170 part.
That is the model number given to me by Per Skaaning himself. Those are my drivers John tested.
If you look at this link of the Flex Unit designs one can see what each number represents.
http://www.audiotechnology.dk/iz.asp?id=4|a|119|||
(copy and paste the line above to get the link to work if interested)
I believe the model number holds true seeing how these drivers utilize an underhung motor.
I like how these drivers are built because the midrange was and is most critical to me. I have plenty of options to cover the low-end of music.
I have been dieing to spill the beans on what I am trying to do with my stereo system. Being that everything is DIY it is just taking much longer than expected.
Hopefully, within the next few weeks I should be able to have four sets of 2-ways to compare. I am trying to figure out for myself what midrange driver I like the best. There are so many opinions available on the web my curiousity got the best of me.
The four midranges are:
W18EX
W18NX
PHL 1120
AT 18H
Stay tuned...
If you look at this link of the Flex Unit designs one can see what each number represents.
http://www.audiotechnology.dk/iz.asp?id=4|a|119|||
(copy and paste the line above to get the link to work if interested)
I believe the model number holds true seeing how these drivers utilize an underhung motor.
I like how these drivers are built because the midrange was and is most critical to me. I have plenty of options to cover the low-end of music.
I have been dieing to spill the beans on what I am trying to do with my stereo system. Being that everything is DIY it is just taking much longer than expected.
Hopefully, within the next few weeks I should be able to have four sets of 2-ways to compare. I am trying to figure out for myself what midrange driver I like the best. There are so many opinions available on the web my curiousity got the best of me.
The four midranges are:
W18EX
W18NX
PHL 1120
AT 18H
Stay tuned...
I'm awfully tired of the rudeness, and shallowness of these discussions.
If someone is enjoying his hobby, it's certainly ok to point out alternatives that he might want to investigate for further growth. But I really don't like anyone telling him he's deluded, unscientific, deaf, whatever.
One of the premises that really irks me is that the two approaches are mutually exclusive. I spent a career as a hardware design engineer and engineering manager, but was originally trained in the sciences. You better believe I believe in measurements. I have been messing with speakers for >50 years, and you better believe I believe in subjective evaluation too. Equipment designers who have been successful over the long term invariably use the two approaches in complementary fashion.
There have been many examples in audio's history of incomplete measurements that failed to correlate with subjective impressions. From the amplifier world, crossover distortion and erratic overload recovery to name just two, and the latter is almost never quantified, or even shown in published test results. Dielectric absorption is easy enough to measure on an isolated capacitor; but measurements that correlate with its audible effects in a working unit?
Human hearing skills are variable. Some single hearing and aural memory out from all other sensible skills as universally consistent, and untrainable. But I would maintain that those skills vary greatly, allowing instrument makers to build musical instruments of varying quality, and I do not deny the existence of perfect pitch, the epitome of aural memory.
Even the most comprehensive of measurements is still only partially helpful. Critical for the designer to correct and improve during the design process---certainly. Useful in letting others know from the printied page which will sound more accurate or more muscial? Much more problematic. Human hearing is just too variable. One example. Doppler distortion; most don't hear it. Paul Klipsch did, because his work on early tape units exposed him to flutter, audibly and measurably. Who measures Doppler distortion, and who could interpret the measurements as personally meaningful? And to fully characterize flutter or Doppler; delta frequency, rms and peak, rate of change of frequency, and which matters to whom? Who hears low level flutter as a distinct phenomenon, (few) and who hears it as a subliminal "something wrong"? Human hearing is a very complex process, with masking nonlinearities and thresholds which vary from individual to individual. Zaph's measurements are a step above, and reflect skill and industry. Certainly a real service to the community. Some test results' comparisons are obvious; but how do different ratios of odd (bad to worse) harmonics to evens, (euphonic) over which frequency ranges affect the perception of quality? I'd suggest that that is variable by individual, and only listening will "calibrate" the test results for an individual.
People who claim to be scientific sometimes forget that science is based on observation. Hypotheses have to be tested by observation, serendipitous observations have to be explained. Inability to explain is too often used to denigrate the observation. Wegener's continental observations showed that the continuity of a rare mineral vein indicated that South Americal and Africa had been joined. In the US, (as opposed to Europe) his observation was dismissed, because no mechanism could explain the observation. Eventually of course, tectonic plate theory and continental drift did. The original evidence should have been placed in a mental folder "Unexplained but noted", rather than one labeled, "Unexplained so can't be".
When someone who is truly versed in the design of perception experiments drops by and observes that the classic suggested test mode is inappropriate, and is almost guaranteed to show negative results, DON"T flame them until they go away in disgust. I'd suggest asking them for advice instead.
And if there's any point I'd hope to make, it is that civility, humor, humility, and joy are the appropriate means to address one onother and our common, enjoyable hobby.
If someone is enjoying his hobby, it's certainly ok to point out alternatives that he might want to investigate for further growth. But I really don't like anyone telling him he's deluded, unscientific, deaf, whatever.
One of the premises that really irks me is that the two approaches are mutually exclusive. I spent a career as a hardware design engineer and engineering manager, but was originally trained in the sciences. You better believe I believe in measurements. I have been messing with speakers for >50 years, and you better believe I believe in subjective evaluation too. Equipment designers who have been successful over the long term invariably use the two approaches in complementary fashion.
There have been many examples in audio's history of incomplete measurements that failed to correlate with subjective impressions. From the amplifier world, crossover distortion and erratic overload recovery to name just two, and the latter is almost never quantified, or even shown in published test results. Dielectric absorption is easy enough to measure on an isolated capacitor; but measurements that correlate with its audible effects in a working unit?
Human hearing skills are variable. Some single hearing and aural memory out from all other sensible skills as universally consistent, and untrainable. But I would maintain that those skills vary greatly, allowing instrument makers to build musical instruments of varying quality, and I do not deny the existence of perfect pitch, the epitome of aural memory.
Even the most comprehensive of measurements is still only partially helpful. Critical for the designer to correct and improve during the design process---certainly. Useful in letting others know from the printied page which will sound more accurate or more muscial? Much more problematic. Human hearing is just too variable. One example. Doppler distortion; most don't hear it. Paul Klipsch did, because his work on early tape units exposed him to flutter, audibly and measurably. Who measures Doppler distortion, and who could interpret the measurements as personally meaningful? And to fully characterize flutter or Doppler; delta frequency, rms and peak, rate of change of frequency, and which matters to whom? Who hears low level flutter as a distinct phenomenon, (few) and who hears it as a subliminal "something wrong"? Human hearing is a very complex process, with masking nonlinearities and thresholds which vary from individual to individual. Zaph's measurements are a step above, and reflect skill and industry. Certainly a real service to the community. Some test results' comparisons are obvious; but how do different ratios of odd (bad to worse) harmonics to evens, (euphonic) over which frequency ranges affect the perception of quality? I'd suggest that that is variable by individual, and only listening will "calibrate" the test results for an individual.
People who claim to be scientific sometimes forget that science is based on observation. Hypotheses have to be tested by observation, serendipitous observations have to be explained. Inability to explain is too often used to denigrate the observation. Wegener's continental observations showed that the continuity of a rare mineral vein indicated that South Americal and Africa had been joined. In the US, (as opposed to Europe) his observation was dismissed, because no mechanism could explain the observation. Eventually of course, tectonic plate theory and continental drift did. The original evidence should have been placed in a mental folder "Unexplained but noted", rather than one labeled, "Unexplained so can't be".
When someone who is truly versed in the design of perception experiments drops by and observes that the classic suggested test mode is inappropriate, and is almost guaranteed to show negative results, DON"T flame them until they go away in disgust. I'd suggest asking them for advice instead.
And if there's any point I'd hope to make, it is that civility, humor, humility, and joy are the appropriate means to address one onother and our common, enjoyable hobby.
Hi Tyler,
Thanks for the opportunity to test those. They are on the way home.
I'm not sure how much you paid, but I estimate their value at around $500 ea based on the madisound version which appears similar but overhung. At least, that's what I insured them for when I shipped them back... enough to require an official UPS signature when I dropped them off.
I don't want to sound like I'm knocking AT drivers, so let me give a quick preview of what I thought was good about them:
The great:
The flattest impedance curve I've ever seen.
Very sensitive compared to others in the group.
Well built and ventilated.
The good:
Good harmonic distortion numbers, but not class leading.
workable response curve but not the flattest.
The bad:
Smallish spider and price is all I could come up with here. If these were $100 each, I'd be using them all the time.
This particular underhung model seems more suitable for midrange duty. I've got a SK-300 overhung woofer sitting here also, which is the only other AT driver I've tested.
Thanks for the opportunity to test those. They are on the way home.
I'm not sure how much you paid, but I estimate their value at around $500 ea based on the madisound version which appears similar but overhung. At least, that's what I insured them for when I shipped them back... enough to require an official UPS signature when I dropped them off.
I don't want to sound like I'm knocking AT drivers, so let me give a quick preview of what I thought was good about them:
The great:
The flattest impedance curve I've ever seen.
Very sensitive compared to others in the group.
Well built and ventilated.
The good:
Good harmonic distortion numbers, but not class leading.
workable response curve but not the flattest.
The bad:
Smallish spider and price is all I could come up with here. If these were $100 each, I'd be using them all the time.
This particular underhung model seems more suitable for midrange duty. I've got a SK-300 overhung woofer sitting here also, which is the only other AT driver I've tested.
One more post before I take off.
Reading through this thread, I see I've started a war of the subjectivists vs the objectivists. Rest assured, that was not my intention. If I wanted a war, I'd have quite a few more choice words about posts like KBK's.
In the future, I'll limit that sort of discussion to my web site. I'm not here to right all the wrongs or promote some agenda. But I do find it difficult to stomach some overly subjective posts. So, rather than respond, the first thing I'm going to do when I see that is leave. I'm sure some of you would like nothing better than that.
Reading through this thread, I see I've started a war of the subjectivists vs the objectivists. Rest assured, that was not my intention. If I wanted a war, I'd have quite a few more choice words about posts like KBK's.
In the future, I'll limit that sort of discussion to my web site. I'm not here to right all the wrongs or promote some agenda. But I do find it difficult to stomach some overly subjective posts. So, rather than respond, the first thing I'm going to do when I see that is leave. I'm sure some of you would like nothing better than that.
Curmudgeon said:
This is one of the best post I ever read on this subject, I do not have the experience to write this down (also english is not my native language).
In my own DiY endeavour I try not to be biased to what I am hearing, measuring, and paying. Sometimes the measurements help in getting a better speaker, but solely on the measurements alone I cannot design something as good as I can when I do both.
Zaph,
you have a lot of credit in this community, but like everyone please respect the opinion of another.
Zaph said:
Actually no - it was viewpoint, and expressed in a light-hearted manner (..not a flame or a personal attack). I.E. its something I appreciate and it DOES provide some balance to the topic - better still, its from someone who enjoys the hobby and is knowledgeable about it.
(..sometimes I think others take this hobby a little to seriously
)Curmudgeon
i feel reading to your post that we agree for all the important things. measurements don't tell everything, far from it, and the complexity of sound perception is such that they don't mean the same thing for everybody.
i just felt like there was an important point to make around what zaph said, that a distortion measurement is worth any amount of subjective impressions (it was a little rougher than that) and scottG reaction that this was a subjective assessment.
I definately don't agree with scottg for one reason, and that was the whole point i was trying to make.
subjective impressions are subject to individual variations, determined by difference of ear perception, but also musical habits, and previous listening , as you very well pointed out .
measurements on the other side as imperfect as they may be , produce data, data you can reproduce if you want, with only minor variations in results, there are rules and quantification of the result, so that they have a particular meaning, wich may introduces other consequences, and may not be percieved the same way by everyone.
my point is that there is no point of comparison between subjective impressions. however, when you got measurements, you can learn to link your subjective likings to measurements, and learn what particular behaviour sounds best to your ear. It's only this way that you could ever give a valid advice to someone, especially because of the point you've made, we all percieve sound differently, that's why we need reference, even if they're not the TRUTH, they're certainly part of the answer , and this is why when somebody asks for advice about a driver, I think that measurement is an invaluable step, nobody is gonna argue about that when we talk fr or t&s , and i think it's the same with distortion, even if it's a way more complicated topic, as you can show the data in many different ways
edit: oh and i enjoyed reading through your post wich was really interresting, certainly better argumented than mine providing some balance . I don't think anyone got really nervous/flame-mood around here, i apologize if i offended anyone with my first post
i feel reading to your post that we agree for all the important things. measurements don't tell everything, far from it, and the complexity of sound perception is such that they don't mean the same thing for everybody.
i just felt like there was an important point to make around what zaph said, that a distortion measurement is worth any amount of subjective impressions (it was a little rougher than that) and scottG reaction that this was a subjective assessment.
I definately don't agree with scottg for one reason, and that was the whole point i was trying to make.
subjective impressions are subject to individual variations, determined by difference of ear perception, but also musical habits, and previous listening , as you very well pointed out .
measurements on the other side as imperfect as they may be , produce data, data you can reproduce if you want, with only minor variations in results, there are rules and quantification of the result, so that they have a particular meaning, wich may introduces other consequences, and may not be percieved the same way by everyone.
my point is that there is no point of comparison between subjective impressions. however, when you got measurements, you can learn to link your subjective likings to measurements, and learn what particular behaviour sounds best to your ear. It's only this way that you could ever give a valid advice to someone, especially because of the point you've made, we all percieve sound differently, that's why we need reference, even if they're not the TRUTH, they're certainly part of the answer , and this is why when somebody asks for advice about a driver, I think that measurement is an invaluable step, nobody is gonna argue about that when we talk fr or t&s , and i think it's the same with distortion, even if it's a way more complicated topic, as you can show the data in many different ways
edit: oh and i enjoyed reading through your post wich was really interresting, certainly better argumented than mine providing some balance
. I don't think anyone got really nervous/flame-mood around here, i apologize if i offended anyone with my first post
Nemophyle said:
what are you talking about ? i mean, what and where is this objective data ?
i simply can't see how meanless prose relying only on narcissism and self satisfaction consumerism , or other more noble beliefs in this respect, like personal preference, can match up to measurements.
they are in fact limited , measurement method and all, but even, that's DATA, data you are free to interpret the way you want, even if it's a dumb way.
of course data can lie, i know that better than anybody working in sociology and statistics, but you will always have a fact, even if your interpretation is biased (wich i personally don't think is zaph case) rather than plain subjectivity, and if ACCURATE is your goal in audio, rather than voodoo.
they are facts indeed in measurements. Several psychosociological studies have shown that the satisfaction given by the fact of buying something prints itself in the limbical brain for durable time , and thus influences any "rational" thinking ( i mean neo cortexical) you may have about it thereafter.
simply put, someone who bought something may be the worst person to be objective about it's qualities.
even hardcore objectivists like zaph have subjective preferences (==> seas drivers , wich are clearly getting better comments, based on qualities that does not affect objective performance deeply ,like maniac build quality)
the worst thing is saying that measurements can't show it all , it's like saying senses shows it .
If that's true , earth is clearly a flat surface, no matter what all theses goddamn scientists can say, they are not into the true feeling of reality for sure.
of course measurements don't show it all, but they at least show something, where beliefs don't show anything else that where you are standing, sociologically speaking, in the audio crowd.
and if audio reproduction is evolving and getting more accurate, it's thanks to engineers, if you prefer the distorted and inaccurate sound coming through 20 years old speakers, fine, but remember they were created by engineers too, engineers who i think (that's an opinion !!) would rather be on the objectivist side today, being ******* happy to have measurement equipment to make better speakers.
an interresting thing is to see with measurements today is to see that motor design is clearly more a place of distortion improvement than cone design, even if the two are importants (not to say cone design is not important, quite the contrary, but the number of poly vs paper vs ceramic discussion overshows that enough) . intuitively, the cone is what is making sound, moving, and it's what you see when listening to a speaker ... this is why measurements are important, for not being fooled believing that earth is flat, and even subjectivists gentlemen like scottG (forgive me for categorizing you like this, it's for the sake of argument) recognize it in a way by giving credit to zaphs work
i don't mean to offend anyone with this post, and i guess it wont interrest a lot of people, i guess it's just necessary for someone like me who almost never post , and always read everything
..and to those who may be taking this a little too seriously..
First - the question hinges on the value to the public generally: meaurements vs. subjective comments. As to the data - Take a look at the publishing industry (in this small corner of the "universe").
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to determine that subjective comments are generally what people would prefer. (..what publications succeed and which ones fail?) This isn't to say that you, Zaph, or I wouldn't prefer measurments OVER subjecitve comments - but we are almost certainly in a minority. (..I'm perhaps not quite as subjective as you might think - the difference however is that I note that ULTIMATLY, for any individual, the final experience is expressly subjective.)
Where I perhaps differ the most though is that I'm perhaps actually LESS subjective than either you or Zaph. (..strange, but follow the logic here.)
Zaph wants measurements. You want measurements. WHY do you want measurements? DO they in fact provide you with information as to sound quality? To an extent I'm sure they do - but how far is that "extent"?
As an example:
Zaph in particular (if I'm correctly interpreting what he as written) wants to see non-linear distortion measurments, more specifically HARMONIC DISTORTION measurements. My question then is - when does such a measurment have relevance? Is a driver with 1% 3rd order distortion, (all else equal - noted that it never really is), meaninfully better than a driver with .1% 3rd order distortion? If so to whom and in what context?
The problem then is that absolutely NONE of these questions really have answers that would qualify as anything BUT subjective. In effect such an adherance to measurments in such situations has exactly the same substantive value as stereophile-esqe prose - in other words: its worth what each individual deems its worth.
The ONLY company I'm aware of that is making any meaningful advances here is Klippel (started by Wolfgang Klippel). Even then however, I realize that this is just the "tip" of the proverbial ice-burg. In the context of a system, in addition to the complexity of listeners (broadly speaking), there will be substantial diversity to further compound what is, and is not "objective". (..and "objectivity" in this case refers to the mean of a broad sample of subjective comments by listeners in a very controlled setting).
Furthermore none of the above includes the "unknown" quanity with respect to measurments - i.e. just how far have we progressed in our ability to measure? Only the most hubris of individuals would suggest we are even close to that limit. Sadly however, (..and I see it all the time), many would suggest EXACTLY that - that we are very close to measuring all that is measurable. Such people apparently give little weight to history (..and those who have - had the very same views through out it, only to be proven VERY wrong). In this context we need to add this unknown quantity (as KBK mentioned) - i.e. that our ability to hear (and all that it entails) may be WELL beyond our ability to measure. Only a truely prudent individual would HEAVILY weight this factor. This leads me to my final "discussion" on this matter: "throwing the baby out with the bath water".
Nevermind the fact (for this last little discussion) that we don't know how relevant a measurment is to our ability to hear. Now we want to focus on what is generally thought as improving a specific measurable parameter (that we actually know how to measure). So then, say we have consistently better measurments from driver A vs. driver B. In fact ALL of the measurments we have say that driver A is better than B. As it turns out though, several listener's we consider very "accute" (and objectivly "test" better than all others) actually prefer B, AND we have objectivly determined that the preference has NOTHING to do with the measurable improvements provided from A vs. B. Quite literally then - this preference is an "unkown" to that which we can measure.
This of course provides another serious problem to those who consider themselves "objective" and "po-po" subjective responses in general. Just looking at our measurements we would not choose B over A. A truely prudent individual however is well aware that this can happen - and in such cases would choose B over A, specifically understanding that we don't "know it all". Now it is HOPED that we will have not only the desire, but also the capacity to discover WHY B sounds better than A, and to not only understand (and be able to measure), but also incorporate the best of both drivers and come up with driver "C" - but it IS a hope and it is not relevant when offered only the selection between option A and B.
Now then take a long hard "look" at these problems. ONLY an objective person would consider themselves subjective on the matter - and because of that, I don't mind at all being considered a "subjectivist" (though perhaps a cautiously objective one).
..and on a more personal note Nemophyle:
I applaude your desire for discovery - but just remember that most of the world's discoveries are in fact NOT discovered through any sort of rigorous scientific method, but rather through "tinkering" (better know as basic trial and error), with often limited or a complete lack of "measuring" beyond the human senses. Sure measuring can help, but only if its given proper perspective.
...
our ability to hear can't be BEYOND our ability to measure, because it simply has nothing in common, except the fact that some waves are processed by a device.
the only thing we need measurements for is to provide some interpretable data, that our ears can't provide, sure you can be guided by your ears, what you are saying is that it may be some unknown parameters that we can't measure , and you are certainly right. But i think you are way wrong in thinking your hearing is gonna give you the keys and the door.
about your examples with two drivers, well , it could simply be that all people prefer driver B because they have been educated to, you know on a side note, sony music and universal made a public anouncment saying that they consider the cellphone as the future of music reproduction, and they are produci ng the music a majority of people on earth listens to, so well ...
well, that's simply not true. any scientific assessment has to be proved by measurement to be considered so, so the discoveries may have been guided by intuition and human senses, but by saying that you certainly forgot all the "discoveries" that has been proven untrue, and that , again , can be done only by measurement.
so in the field of audio, you may well have discovered why ribbons are better, or light mass cones , or snake oil capacitors, but unless you also find the way to prove it, you simply discovered nothing beyond personal preference, period.
so in doubt , i rely on the few measurements that actually exists, and on my own ears, but certainly not on the ears of others (that's maybe why i diy
).the good thing about this topic is that i have to work my english hard
btw forgive me/tell me if some parts of my posts means nothing !EDIT : oh and about distortion, the word SIGNIFICANTLY is important, all others unknown and strange things being equals, a driver with 0.01% K3 distortion IS better than a driver with 1%. Can you really hear it ?
Is it worth the price difference well we are back into subjective territory. I think that claiming to hear the difference between the two is more realistic than claiming to hear the slope of a speakers crossover from outside the room, but i couldn't be totally sure 
Curmudgeon said:
Lovely sentiment, well expressed!
I'm a bit of a middle grounder. Having heard quite a few "boom 'n' tweet" boxes that were the norm before Theile and Small quantified stuff in the early 70's (or who-ever else it was), I can see why some would think that figures and measurement were the way to go. And some of the early SS amps would seem to indicate the other way is best - certainly a good tube can "sound" better even if it's figures don't add up as good.
I don't think it's subjective/objective - there's some that likes to read, there's some that likes to listen, and then there's those that think the truth is out there somewhere. But hopefully we all like to listen...
pinkmouse said:
I'm sure a particle physicist or molecular biologist would completely disagree with that.
Anyway, lets get back to the topic guys.
There are always exceptions to the rule!
But how long have particle physicits and molecular biologists been "around" when compared to "most of the world's discoveries" and all that it implies?
(..and even then I'd bet a fair bit of "tinkering" was done - though of course WITH measurements.)
ScottG said:
pinkmouse said:I'm sure a particle physicist or molecular biologist would completely disagree with that.
OT
ScottG, you are reasonably correct. A lot of major discoveries have been found by accident/tinkering/"Oh, what's that I stubbed my toe on". But scientific method actually provides for this also. For every experiment that is successful (ie. that produces the expected result) there is another that produces an unexpected result. The difference here is whether the experimenter is a dullard (and doesn't go any further) or if they think "hang on, why did it do that?". This is the scientific version of 'tinkering'.
Particle physicists know that scientific method is applied after the thinking, in order to prove it, not in order to discover it. But scientific method is not used to find out things, merely to prove that they are correct or incorrect - according to specifications.
We all apply scientific method in building speakers (to a certain extent). "Well, Speaker-Box v1.1 says 2 cubic feet sealed and a single 4mH inductor in series" - so you build it and use your ears/measurements/magic to decide whether the software is correct. Then you make one change at a time in order to try to improve the sound - all according to ideas already thought of. And you thought scientific method was only for people in white coats (not the ones with extra long sleeves
)...Now back to the topic...
I'm hoping that the Accutons aren't as bad as they're being made out to be, as I've got a pair coming in. But then again, I was planning to see how they go in a front-loaded horn - so what do I care
?Quote:
"I'm hoping that the Accutons aren't as bad as they're being made out to be, as I've got a pair coming in. But then again, I was planning to see how they go in a front-loaded horn - so what do I care?"
In my discussion of the Accutons, I was comparing them to the best drivers I've ever encountered. They are very good indeed; I just felt that another was better, but the Accutons are used in some very expensive speakers (made by companies that lasted > a year). The versions we looked at needed a trap or two, and the grill removed, and real care in selecting clean crossover components. After all that, the units we looked at (which were not the current version) suffered a slight loss in dynamics, again compared to a driver that excels in that department.
So, "bad" is just not an appropriate label; I hope this puts it into better perspective.
Let us know how you feel about them when you've worked with them.
btw, iirc breakin required!
"I'm hoping that the Accutons aren't as bad as they're being made out to be, as I've got a pair coming in. But then again, I was planning to see how they go in a front-loaded horn - so what do I care?"
In my discussion of the Accutons, I was comparing them to the best drivers I've ever encountered. They are very good indeed; I just felt that another was better, but the Accutons are used in some very expensive speakers (made by companies that lasted > a year). The versions we looked at needed a trap or two, and the grill removed, and real care in selecting clean crossover components. After all that, the units we looked at (which were not the current version) suffered a slight loss in dynamics, again compared to a driver that excels in that department.
So, "bad" is just not an appropriate label; I hope this puts it into better perspective.
Let us know how you feel about them when you've worked with them.
btw, iirc breakin required!
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.