For those who still think your beloved music is the holy grail of speaker testing :
https://elusivedisc.com/drums-bells-comparing-sticks-cd/
Check out the linked 30sec sound samples of each track!
There are more albums from Tonian Labs with real music not just sound samples ... ask Miss Google for a friendly advice!
https://elusivedisc.com/drums-bells-comparing-sticks-cd/
Check out the linked 30sec sound samples of each track!
There are more albums from Tonian Labs with real music not just sound samples ... ask Miss Google for a friendly advice!
Do you mean in the first post of the thread? Oddly, those links seem to be dead. I'm familiar with the HiFiCompass measurements for these drivers. My question had more to do with any experience they had utilizing the passive parallel / series notch technique to these specific drivers and the sonic results of doing so.
try this one if i was too cryptic, user jcga. Twin notch filters on the M74 and the measured effects.
Overworked and lack of sleep, so excuse me for that
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/threads/bliesma-m74b-three-inch-dome-driver.387374/
The M74A is the perfect candidate for a passive notch. The resonance is strong and wide and occurs at the same frequency for all reasonable off axis angles, so notching it will have a similar effect across all angles. It also extends down towards 8K so removing it has much more chance of being audible.
The M74B does not have the same consistency across angles in the highest peak, is not as strong or as well defined and is another few K up in frequency.
The impedance traces show the magnitude differences between the resonances quite well.
Double peaks are much harder to suppress with passive filters. The M74B really needs DSP to get every little bit of bandwidth its capable of with a more shallow LP, but you shouldn't cross them that high anyways if you want good power response. The off axis irregularities pose an issue when trying to find a compromise. Its better to just steer clear of the breakup area altogether.
The M74A is more suitable for a passive filter, being it has a single peak and it doesn't shift off axis. This is typical of deeper dome profiles,, but more common with Aluminum alloy diaphragms. I prefer the sound of the A version over the others anyways.
But we are surely talking about the unfiltered drivers? If that's the case then it's kind of pointless as no one is going to use them this way.Ha! For my taste the aluminum version takes the last place on sound among other M74x midranges
I would like to see versions made of ENDUMAX , or TPX :
https://audioxpress.com/article/Endumax-from-Teijin-Aramid-An-Exciting-New-Speaker-Cone-Material
https://audioxpress.com/article/speaker-cones-fabrication-materials-and-performance
TPX seems to be fallen out of favour , the MT14 driver by SEAS had such a smooth falling response (due to vcoil inductivity) but the diapragm foil looks like a cheap packaging foil with uneven surface ... once they said TPX is no longer produced but after googling for it I see many sources to buy from in many thicknesses!?
TPX is lightweight (0.832) and has high internal damping , high stiffness and resists most solvents , is UV-stable , non-toxic , cheap and easy for deep drawing parts , and and and , the list is long!
Is this material too good to be true and therefor held back by the industry?
Audio Conspiracy , anyone
https://audioxpress.com/article/Endumax-from-Teijin-Aramid-An-Exciting-New-Speaker-Cone-Material
https://audioxpress.com/article/speaker-cones-fabrication-materials-and-performance
TPX seems to be fallen out of favour , the MT14 driver by SEAS had such a smooth falling response (due to vcoil inductivity) but the diapragm foil looks like a cheap packaging foil with uneven surface ... once they said TPX is no longer produced but after googling for it I see many sources to buy from in many thicknesses!?
TPX is lightweight (0.832) and has high internal damping , high stiffness and resists most solvents , is UV-stable , non-toxic , cheap and easy for deep drawing parts , and and and , the list is long!
Is this material too good to be true and therefor held back by the industry?
Audio Conspiracy , anyone
Last edited:
I do every week and I'm PRETTY sure I know how instruments sound.
In the room, close up, for the microphone in the room/some distance/close/inside/pickup. All of these are different. So which REAL sound did you mean?
There is no unprocessed music with Stereo. Cause Stereo is not able to reproduce a real source.
You need ambisonics for that, it get's complicated quickly.
MOST people don't want to hear the REAL sound of an instrument. We are used to "bigger then live" sound and some genres live from this sound.
What is the natural sound of a drum machine? Keyboard? Digital Efects?
You are narrowing your music interest pretty strong when only listening to "natural instruments".
I did a serial notch with M74A and it works as it should - less THD. But I could not do a listening comparison.
But I did a listening comparison of the S and A version (and have written here already). In short - the S "hides" fine details in direct comparison, for critical listening I would for sure use the A.
But I did a listening comparison of the S and A version (and have written here already). In short - the S "hides" fine details in direct comparison, for critical listening I would for sure use the A.
Don't mention that in SBAF
Anyway, does anyone know M74 power handling? M142 would be cool to know too
I partially agree with you, but there are quite a few studo recordings which capture instruments very well and with natural clarity. They often are direct to disc recordings made without a separate mix down process and mastered on the fly.
The Tonian Labs recordings are very good. I have most of them and its quite amazing what results can be obtained with 44.1k / 16 bit sampling. They don't achieve the level of performance (musically speaking) that a direct to disc half speed mastered analog recording can. Sure, you need a higher end MC cartridge with micro line or line contact stylus profile to play it all back properly, as it mimicks the cutting stylus closer than any other stylus profile. Of course you'll also need a good turntable, preferably with a linear tracking arm. Because of all this, its very expensive to do vinyl playback properly when compared to digital. A few to several hundred dollars of quality digital playback hardware can put a higher end analog source (mainly vinyl) to shame in terms of technical performance specs, but it may not sound quite as organic despite the superior specs on paper. Once most people hear a good piece of vinyl played back on a very good turntable and cartridge, it transforms your perspective on what makes up a good playback source.
Most people don't find natural sounding recordings of solo instruments very pleasing. Only those with trained ears and taste will do so if the artist has the talent and a following large enough to make it pay off. Usually its a niche artist who does very eccentric material. Just look at the comparison of Elton John with someone like Cecil Taylor. Same instruments but completely different genres and followings. I can guarantee an "avantgarde" jazz artist like Cecil Taylor has only sold a fraction of the albums Elton has, who is a pop artist having made many studio recordings with rather inferior fidelity. Most people won't tolerate the seizure like musical insanity coming out of Cecil's piano even if it sounds more natural and well recorded. There are some people who do, bit they're typically the sort of individuals who listen to their audio gear rather than to music itself for its artistic value.
Last edited:
yeah. It is rare to find a recording that both musically brilliant (compositionally brilliant and emotionally engaging) AND naturally recorded. Too often we have to choose between a boring set of "music" that was recorded with spectacular expertise, and truly great songs which were recorded by a sadistic nincompoop.