I'll also reference Beranek's Law, since it seems appropriate here
It has been remarked that if one selects his own components, builds his own enclosure, and is convinced he has made a wise choice of design, then his own loudspeaker sounds better to him than does anyone else's loudspeaker. In this case, the frequency response of the loudspeaker seems to play only a minor part in forming a person's opinion.
L.L. Beranek, Acoustics (McGraw-Hill, New York, 1954), p.208.
Exactly.... it's confirmation bias.
The best equipment I've ever heard is the stuff I build myself. Is that biased?
You bet! It comes with the territory.
It is very hard to remain "objective" about the subjective aspects of this hobby once you've got some effort invested.
White stripes Black Math. This song seems to have a lot of midrange energy as far as I can tell, and should sound awful if there are problems with the crossover. Actually any of the heavier songs from Elephant will be a good test IMO.
Things that I think it will uncover are too low/shallow crossover (tweeter ends up getting lots of intermodulation distortion) and woofer cone breakup problems that are not adequately dealt with. It basically sounds harsh, and you will be reaching for the volume knob in a short time to turn it down.
Having said that, my own speakers original crossover made it completely unlistenable. My revised crossover it is now tolerable at moderate volume, however it may also uncover weaknesses in things like your CD player/DAC (as in my case changing sources does also help), so it may not ALL be from the speakers.
Tony.
If you can recognize the BIG sound from the speaker I think your ears are quite good. It is one of the rare woofer where small in size (and require small box) but can go very low in frequency.
You don't need special CD to differentiate your simple XO and Carmody's. Simpler may tend to have better sonic but the real test is whether you enjoy it or not. Please do this as I'm very curious why it is not obvious to people: listen one mono for a day, better when you need to rest at night until morning. Then do the same with the other. It's usually very different because the result can be of two extremes, you are happy or you are disturbed. I will for sure champion Carmody's XO even tho there's elevated bass that with room resonance may be disturbing.
Hi,
FWIW my favourite "test" CD is "The Trinity Sessions" by the "Cowboy Junkies",
which TBH can sound very nice on very mundane equipment but boy does it
get better in all respects most hifi buffs think is hifi on a very good system.
Its a crude (as opposed to polished) recording and all the better for it.
Essentially a band, in a church, direct to 2 track, via a Calrec mike.
I'm not claiming a stunning level of fidelity on the recording, but
think there is a lot on the recording that rewards a good system.
It should easily demonstrate (if the speakers are set up properly)
the difference between a correct x/o and a very crude lashup.
Here however the "correct" x/o isn't, as the tweeter is different.
rgds, sreten.
FWIW my favourite "test" CD is "The Trinity Sessions" by the "Cowboy Junkies",
which TBH can sound very nice on very mundane equipment but boy does it
get better in all respects most hifi buffs think is hifi on a very good system.
Its a crude (as opposed to polished) recording and all the better for it.
Essentially a band, in a church, direct to 2 track, via a Calrec mike.
I'm not claiming a stunning level of fidelity on the recording, but
think there is a lot on the recording that rewards a good system.
It should easily demonstrate (if the speakers are set up properly)
the difference between a correct x/o and a very crude lashup.
Here however the "correct" x/o isn't, as the tweeter is different.
rgds, sreten.
Last edited:
Thanks for that. I'll have my niece download that in MP3 format. Or is that a can of worms? Is MP3 not good enough?
Thanks
Tony
Well maybe my ears ain't so bad! I don't know if this means anything at all. I bought the Minimus 7's some 30 or so years ago. They sounded good in the store but once I got them home they sounded like crap. Lacking in bass and severely lacking in power handling. I know there is a strong following of Minimus 7 lovers, probably not on DIYAUDIO, but the B4N setup puts them to shame with or without the right xo. Kudo's to Paul C for exposing their potential. They sound huge and they are filling an almost 32' X 32' area with amazing punch (struggling a bit but doing it).
I'll try your suggestions.
Thanks
Tony
Thanks sreten. I never even heard of the Cowboy Junkies but if you recommend it I'll try it. I want to learn. You posts are always quite informative to newbies like me and probably to some of the more seasoned members as well.
Tony
Hi,
MP3 is good enough to illustrate all the basics.
Falls down on the subtleties compared to CD.
We are not talking subtleties at all here.
I'll repeat yet again you have not considered differences
in the tweeters. The two drivers in the OS just x/o with
a capacitor and inductor would sound hideously bright.
rgds, sreten.
R1 and R2 need adjusting for a different tweeter at least.
Last edited:
Something else that you may have is Pink Floyd "The Division Bell" It also (I think the 2nd or 3rd track) tends to sound bad when the crossover is not up to scratch.
My experience with MP3 and Black Math was that it was quite different, BUT it was not comparing apples with apples. The CD was through my HT PC and the MP3 was via an ipod plugged direct to the amp. It wasn't my Ipod, but I should have transferred off the MP3 onto the HT PC and listened again to work out where the difference really lay, alas I didn't. I also do not know what bit-rate the MP3 was ripped at.
My friend was quite taken aback at how different it sounded off the ipod. A lot of the harshness was gone, BUT it also sounded somewhat dull, lacking in detail. I guess a very spectrally dense recording like Black Math may lose more when compressed with a lossy compression like MP3.
I guess I could rip it myself and do a comparison
Tony.
My experience with MP3 and Black Math was that it was quite different, BUT it was not comparing apples with apples. The CD was through my HT PC and the MP3 was via an ipod plugged direct to the amp. It wasn't my Ipod, but I should have transferred off the MP3 onto the HT PC and listened again to work out where the difference really lay, alas I didn't. I also do not know what bit-rate the MP3 was ripped at.
My friend was quite taken aback at how different it sounded off the ipod. A lot of the harshness was gone, BUT it also sounded somewhat dull, lacking in detail. I guess a very spectrally dense recording like Black Math may lose more when compressed with a lossy compression like MP3.
I guess I could rip it myself and do a comparison
Tony.
Last edited:
I've been of the opinion sometimes that an ipod seems to provide a warmth/smoothness to some material which I haven't thought should be there.
Regarding MP3s, while a lot can be said sometimes they'll bring through astonishing detail. They can certainly sound good in the usual sense of the word.
Regarding MP3s, while a lot can be said sometimes they'll bring through astonishing detail. They can certainly sound good in the usual sense of the word.
"Smoothness" would probably be a good description for the above related experience. It certainly took the edge off! Unfortunately I didn't get a copy so couldn't play back via the same source as the CD to work out if it was the rip or the ipod making the difference.
I've been suspicious for a while that the DAC in the onboard HD audio of my HTPC is not doing things justice, so it may be more than one mechanism at work, with two bads, making something awful. I really should get off my backside and make my DAC kit I got for Christmas two years ago
One of my favourite test tracks is "Private Investigations" off love over gold by Dire Straights. It sounds good on just about anything, but its got a lot of dynamic range and sounds great on a good system.
Another thing that is useful is to listen to male and female vocals (Ella and Louis is another fave) Any nasal sounding vocals is probably a sign that something is not quite right, obviously if the singer has a naturally nasal voice then this is not a good test.
Tony.
I've been suspicious for a while that the DAC in the onboard HD audio of my HTPC is not doing things justice, so it may be more than one mechanism at work, with two bads, making something awful. I really should get off my backside and make my DAC kit I got for Christmas two years ago
One of my favourite test tracks is "Private Investigations" off love over gold by Dire Straights. It sounds good on just about anything, but its got a lot of dynamic range and sounds great on a good system.
Another thing that is useful is to listen to male and female vocals (Ella and Louis is another fave) Any nasal sounding vocals is probably a sign that something is not quite right, obviously if the singer has a naturally nasal voice then this is not a good test.
Tony.
I like the way the crescendos are built up by subtleties such as the bottle being thrown down a laneway. The first time I heard this track with a woofer that didn't have a conniption over the dynamics I think I was disappointed at the lack of overheating voice coil sound. In those days my system could only do one thing right at a time though
I like to check things out listening to Rebecca Pidgeons "Spanish harlem",
album The raven. To much reverberant sounds and resonating sonics give
me headache if XO is wrong. If everything OK, natural an unobtrusive
sounding music.
Yes; this is good advice. Also, with a program like Holm Impulse (it's free) you can time gate, allowing valid measurements indoors. The problem with recommending music is that a particular piece of music may illustrate a specific problem, but there's no substitute for careful measurement.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.