Dont forget to subtract about 6db for every time you double the distance past that 1m spl 
That 107db at 128 watts is 95db 4 meter and your amp is basically tapped trying to double down again.
Again reference level peaks are 105 db.
If the op plans on 5db below reference he really needs a 92db 1w speaker to be on the safe side.
That 107db at 128 watts is 95db 4 meter and your amp is basically tapped trying to double down again.
Again reference level peaks are 105 db.
If the op plans on 5db below reference he really needs a 92db 1w speaker to be on the safe side.
Last edited:
You've (more or less) qualified you statement to the point where I can't argue with it. A music system is very different than a Movies system. The dynamics in a movie as well as the audio peaks are a lot higher than in typical music.
So, yes, Sensitivity is important in a Home Theater system. But it is important within a reasonable context. Give the drivers being discussed, I don't see this as a problem. But, yes, absolutely it can not be ignored especially with the kind of money being discussed here.
So, I'm not saying ignore it; do consider it, just don't become obsessed with it. If the final system is in the range of 90dB, plus or minus 3dB, you'll be fine.
In my opinion.
Steve
Interesting discussion.
Jay is absolutely right. THX reference levels are 85dB with peaks of 105dB for the sats and 115dB for the sub at the listening position. That's what properly calibrated movie theaters are supposed to be and most people find them way too loud.
Many people find 10dB below this level to be satisfactory for home use. Others find whatever the wife says to be the right level.
But seriously, none of that really matters here. The point is what does Rick find to be his preferred level since this is about his system. So when you get the time Rick, I would suggest some testing and measurement with an SPL meter with your current system. Set your levels with the test tones, put your favorite movie or 2 in, pour yourself a glass of a favorite wine and determine exactly what level you prefer and what your receiver is playing at at that level - if that's possible with your current system.
My guess is that you're going to need just a little less sensitivity than you think you do, but just a little. But I've been wrong many times before though......
Nice amp btw. I checked and it's good for 210W into 4ohms for every channel. To add my own experience to the fray, the sensitivity of my ZD5's is actually closer to 80dB. Running them with an older Denon 4802 150W/channel, I have never not been able to get them loud enough for me. And I like loud enough over the years to have now done noticeable damage to my ears.
Cheers and good luck on the test. Are you taking a somelier course?
Jay is absolutely right. THX reference levels are 85dB with peaks of 105dB for the sats and 115dB for the sub at the listening position. That's what properly calibrated movie theaters are supposed to be and most people find them way too loud.
Many people find 10dB below this level to be satisfactory for home use. Others find whatever the wife says to be the right level.
But seriously, none of that really matters here. The point is what does Rick find to be his preferred level since this is about his system. So when you get the time Rick, I would suggest some testing and measurement with an SPL meter with your current system. Set your levels with the test tones, put your favorite movie or 2 in, pour yourself a glass of a favorite wine and determine exactly what level you prefer and what your receiver is playing at at that level - if that's possible with your current system.
My guess is that you're going to need just a little less sensitivity than you think you do, but just a little. But I've been wrong many times before though......
Nice amp btw. I checked and it's good for 210W into 4ohms for every channel. To add my own experience to the fray, the sensitivity of my ZD5's is actually closer to 80dB. Running them with an older Denon 4802 150W/channel, I have never not been able to get them loud enough for me. And I like loud enough over the years to have now done noticeable damage to my ears.
Cheers and good luck on the test. Are you taking a somelier course?
Personally I would put drivers like this back on the table
Eighteen Sound Speakers - Eighteen Sound 6ND430 - Eighteen Sound 6ND430 6.5" woofer has a lightweight neodymium magnet. Eighteen Sound 6ND430 6.5" subwoofers are available here. 18 Sound speaker components.
The 16 ohm version is a 90 db driver, meaning a parallel pair gets you a very easy to drive speaker. 1 ft3 tuned to 60hz gets an F3 of 64hz for a pair.
You really just need to define exactly what you are looking for from the speaker, and put together a list of drivers that fit those goals...
Eighteen Sound Speakers - Eighteen Sound 6ND430 - Eighteen Sound 6ND430 6.5" woofer has a lightweight neodymium magnet. Eighteen Sound 6ND430 6.5" subwoofers are available here. 18 Sound speaker components.
The 16 ohm version is a 90 db driver, meaning a parallel pair gets you a very easy to drive speaker. 1 ft3 tuned to 60hz gets an F3 of 64hz for a pair.
You really just need to define exactly what you are looking for from the speaker, and put together a list of drivers that fit those goals...
Thanks everyone for the input here.
@jay - yes, my math also comes out saying if I want 80db base with 20db peaks at the listening position I will likely need 92db effecient speakers (and yes, in room may be slightly better than raw measurements)
@jReave - yes, I need to figure out if 80 with 100 peaks is what I want (and yes, the only time I get to these levels is when my wife is NOT present). Problem is, a simple SPL meter won't catch a short peak, but is likely to display higher than base levels; also hard to determine which of the front 3 should be kept hooked up (we are talking about single speaker levels, right) for which passage of music (I say music because even though I listen to movies loud sometimes, i suspect Dark Side of the Moon gets loudest - and BlueWizard, music can absolutely contain peaks that rival movies)
@BlueWizard - not sure where you came up with $1180 per speaker for drivers
Look at the initial proposal, 2 Seas L16 woofers ($105 ea. at Madisound), Audax HM100Z0 midrange ($80 at Madisound), Hyquphon OW4 tweeter ($150ea from Ellis Audio); total of $440 per speaker for the front 3, and $335 for the rears.
@jay - yes, my math also comes out saying if I want 80db base with 20db peaks at the listening position I will likely need 92db effecient speakers (and yes, in room may be slightly better than raw measurements)
@jReave - yes, I need to figure out if 80 with 100 peaks is what I want (and yes, the only time I get to these levels is when my wife is NOT present
). Problem is, a simple SPL meter won't catch a short peak, but is likely to display higher than base levels; also hard to determine which of the front 3 should be kept hooked up (we are talking about single speaker levels, right) for which passage of music (I say music because even though I listen to movies loud sometimes, i suspect Dark Side of the Moon gets loudest - and BlueWizard, music can absolutely contain peaks that rival movies)@BlueWizard - not sure where you came up with $1180 per speaker for drivers
Look at the initial proposal, 2 Seas L16 woofers ($105 ea. at Madisound), Audax HM100Z0 midrange ($80 at Madisound), Hyquphon OW4 tweeter ($150ea from Ellis Audio); total of $440 per speaker for the front 3, and $335 for the rears.Thanks - yes, I'm taking my WSET (Wine and Spirit Education Trust) Level 3 test; so the knowledge geared less to the serving side and more to the retail and distribution side
I'm looking for something that will be a significant audio experience upgrade from my current KEFs (which are excellent, and truly an incredible value) that address the things I have learned from spending too much time at AVS:
1. deficiencies of typical M-T-M centre speaker designs; hence my wanting a 3-way with a dedicated mid (I don't have that problem now as my front three are all 2-way point source coax)
2. ensuring adequate efficiency to properly experience dynamics; the HT crowd scream that anything in the mid-80s is wholly inadequate; hence my desire for at least 90 and hopefully 92 (mind you, I have been fine with my KEFs at 89db sensitivity - I don't think I've clipped, but a bit of extra headroom, to allow for a larger room in my next house, could be good); of course it could be slightly lower, say 87 or 88, if there is enough power handling.
All of your guys thoughts are helping to educate me -thanks
Last edited:
Now, also in the same price range as the L16 is the Seas L18. Sensitivity is up to 88db - so 2 in parallel would be 94, with 4db of BSC could lead to a 90db speaker.
Anyone have any thoughts on a pair of those for 80 - 500Hz?
Sorry Jay, this one is not designed for sealed; what would it's transient response be like in a ported box?
Anyone have any thoughts on a pair of those for 80 - 500Hz?
Sorry Jay, this one is not designed for sealed; what would it's transient response be like in a ported box?
The only thing that really matters IMO is how it integrates with your subwoofer system. You are going to have a receiver with an electronic crossover right? The 18 sound box alignment that I spec'd will be -6db at 80 hz with a 2nd order 80hz filter applied. This means if your sub rolloff is adjusted to be -6db at 80hz, and you get the phase alignment correct between the two, you will have a flat summed response as your mains transition to subs. This is how a LR crossover functions
This is all just my personal opinion, but this transient response stuff is just audiophile mumbo jumbo, and doesnt have any actual relevance to sound quality... I wont argue with anyone who feels different, that is just my opinion, which is backed by the fact that the VAST majority of speakers are ported regardless of price, including basically all high output HT specific speakers, anyway....
The distortion performance of the 18 Sound is world class, with only a very minor breakup issue above 3 khz that wont even need a notch crossed as low as you plan
This is all just my personal opinion, but this transient response stuff is just audiophile mumbo jumbo, and doesnt have any actual relevance to sound quality... I wont argue with anyone who feels different, that is just my opinion, which is backed by the fact that the VAST majority of speakers are ported regardless of price, including basically all high output HT specific speakers, anyway....
The distortion performance of the 18 Sound is world class, with only a very minor breakup issue above 3 khz that wont even need a notch crossed as low as you plan
My current AVR is a Yamaha RXV1800, and I have things crossed to the sub at 80Hz - it's a Rythmik F12.
Every speaker I own right now is ported (except my sub) - so I'm pretty sure i could live with porting the new 5.0.
Sounds like it could be a good option.
I would image the L16 would be a good timbre match if i wanted to go with the smaller driver in the rears - wouldn't you think?
Every speaker I own right now is ported (except my sub) - so I'm pretty sure i could live with porting the new 5.0.
Sounds like it could be a good option.
I would image the L16 would be a good timbre match if i wanted to go with the smaller driver in the rears - wouldn't you think?
yes, I need to figure out if 80 with 100 peaks is what I want (and yes, the only time I get to these levels is when my wife is NOT present
Two things.
First, there are probably a few ways to go about the measuring thing. I do actually have a simple Radio Shack SPL meter that does record max SPL's, model 33-2055. That will do the job, but I was thinking more of measuring the level of the amp's test tones which might be around 85dB and then seeing where you end up setting your volume knob, ie. 0, -5, -10, etc. and that will tell you what your personal preferences are for your listening position SPL.
So second, I'm not talking about the volume in theory but in practice - listen to all your speakers connected. Listen in stereo, listen in 5.1, listen to music and listen to movies. That's the way you'll be using it, not as single speakers. And different movies and cd's/albums and even surround processing formats will output at slightly different levels so it's good to know what your maximum needs will be. What will be the absolute maximum setting that you use?
If you can determine exactly what your SPL preferences are in your listening distance with your current system, then knowing that they are 89dB speakers and that the Yamaha has 130W available, then we can extrapolate everything else you need from there including what you'll need for a bigger room.
Everything else is just supposition at this point.
Jay, I look at it a different way. For me, I've never cared about what the majority of people are doing. I want to know what the best speakers are and what their designers are doing to achieve the highest levels of sound reproduction. Take Magico just as 1 example. I'm not sure that they have ever done a single ported design. That speaks a lot louder to me. And what I have found is that a better transient response is just 1 of many subtle measures, like absorbing the rear wave, or using aluminum baffles, or soundproofing the cabinet that adds up to a better sounding speaker. First on the list however is quality drivers.
Also, in terms of HT references, the THX reference actually specifies sealed for all satellite speakers. This is because it also specifies that THX certified amps have a 4th order LP for the sub and a 2nd order HP for the speakers which when combined with the natural 2nd order roll off of a sealed design creates a matching 4th order xo. More info available here - Feature Article
Sorry, I'm also going to respectfully disagree with you on this too. I think Rick has stated that he is looking for more than "good". And especially for multi-channel music, he should at least have the same tweeter and mid, but with the mid xo up as high as 500 or 600Hz, then I think he needs to have the same speakers all around for the level of quality he is looking for.
Thanks everyone for the input here.
...
@BlueWizard - not sure where you came up with $1180 per speaker for drivers
Sorry, that was intended to be a very extreme example. You, in a manner of speaking said, money is no object, though that is more paraphrasing than a quote.
I wanted you to see what could happen if you don't set a budget framework for the project. I didn't intend that to be realistic, just an illustration of why you need to at least fix your budget per speaker, if not at a specific number, then down to a working range.
Again, the more focused the discussion becomes, the more precise and functional the recommendations can be.
Steve
Well, I don't have a budget per se, but I have a target. A target that I am willing to exceed if the best solution to my goal requires it.
But I think replacing the L16 from my original with the L18 should get to 90db with the same budget.
Still open to hearing opinions, morediscussion and more suggestions (i.e. whatever the budget is, it will still be quite a while before it is reality - so I have plenty of time to change my mind).
A few more thoughts from me today.
The other approach to the HT timber matching problem that I couldn't remember the other day that involves using 2-ways for the mains and sats, but a 3-way for the CC is to stick within the same brand for the different drivers but use different sizes. So the 2-ways for example get the Revelator 18W's plus a tweeter while the CC gets the same tweeter with the 12W as the mid and 2 x 15W as the woofers. Or perhaps the 15W as the mid and 2 x 18W as the woofers.
Now the 12W, 15W and 18W won't sound exactly the same in the same midrange frequencies but by using the same types of motors and the same cone materials they'll come close. One can also attempt to minimize any differences with the xo's. Applies of course to other driver brands as well.
I still think that your method is slightly preferable but it's a trade-off - this might allow you to go with higher quality drivers. Just something to consider.
I thought the graphs below might also be helpful. These are Zaph's distortion tests for Kef's new'ish Q100 driver. This appears to be comparable to what you have in your iQ3's but probably a little improved in quality. Please correct me on this if I am wrong.
First graph is the woofer. Third order is below -60dB but it never actually drops below -70 at all. That's interesting. Second order is quite nice actually and stays below -60 for all frequencies above about 250Hz. Fifth order sits at about the -80dB level.
Btw, I'm throwing enough of these graphs at you that I figure you've probably figured out how to read them by now. One thing to note is that the fundamental in all of them doesn't actually sit at 0dB, it's at -10. So the scale is really a bit off. Third order distortion isn't actually 60dB quieter than the input signal, it's only 50dB down. And so on for each order.
The 2nd graph is for the tweeter. Looking from 1500Hz and higher, 3rd order is below -70, 5th order sits around -90 and 2nd order hovers around -60. That's pretty good. And nicer than the woofer.
Third graph is the directivity of the tweeter. Almost exactly the same on all axes. That's outstanding actually. And that's because the woofer is acting as a waveguide for the tweeter. So I'd have to say that's a particular strength of your Kef's.
Fourth graph is the step/transient response of the woofer, ported in 12L (my guestimate) with a tuning of 50Hz. Not that great.
So, since you're probably going to be unable to actually listen to any given driver before you buy them, these are 4 measures/goals/targets that you might try to exceed to ensure a better new speaker than your current one:
1 - harmonic distortion for the LF and HF better than these 2 graphs. Specifically, 3rd order below -70 for the woofer/mid and -75/-80 for the tweeter.
2 - equivalent tweeter directivity, it's hard to do better than this
3 - faster transient/step response
4 - SPL capabilities yet to be determined.
The other 2 important factors are the quality of the xo and cabinet construction but Salk has got those covered.
And an obvious suggestion: copy all the graphs presented so far to a file for easier future reference and comparison purposes.
Cheers
The other approach to the HT timber matching problem that I couldn't remember the other day that involves using 2-ways for the mains and sats, but a 3-way for the CC is to stick within the same brand for the different drivers but use different sizes. So the 2-ways for example get the Revelator 18W's plus a tweeter while the CC gets the same tweeter with the 12W as the mid and 2 x 15W as the woofers. Or perhaps the 15W as the mid and 2 x 18W as the woofers.
Now the 12W, 15W and 18W won't sound exactly the same in the same midrange frequencies but by using the same types of motors and the same cone materials they'll come close. One can also attempt to minimize any differences with the xo's. Applies of course to other driver brands as well.
I still think that your method is slightly preferable but it's a trade-off - this might allow you to go with higher quality drivers. Just something to consider.
I thought the graphs below might also be helpful. These are Zaph's distortion tests for Kef's new'ish Q100 driver. This appears to be comparable to what you have in your iQ3's but probably a little improved in quality. Please correct me on this if I am wrong.
First graph is the woofer. Third order is below -60dB but it never actually drops below -70 at all. That's interesting. Second order is quite nice actually and stays below -60 for all frequencies above about 250Hz. Fifth order sits at about the -80dB level.
Btw, I'm throwing enough of these graphs at you that I figure you've probably figured out how to read them by now. One thing to note is that the fundamental in all of them doesn't actually sit at 0dB, it's at -10. So the scale is really a bit off. Third order distortion isn't actually 60dB quieter than the input signal, it's only 50dB down. And so on for each order.
The 2nd graph is for the tweeter. Looking from 1500Hz and higher, 3rd order is below -70, 5th order sits around -90 and 2nd order hovers around -60. That's pretty good. And nicer than the woofer.
Third graph is the directivity of the tweeter. Almost exactly the same on all axes. That's outstanding actually. And that's because the woofer is acting as a waveguide for the tweeter. So I'd have to say that's a particular strength of your Kef's.
Fourth graph is the step/transient response of the woofer, ported in 12L (my guestimate) with a tuning of 50Hz. Not that great.
So, since you're probably going to be unable to actually listen to any given driver before you buy them, these are 4 measures/goals/targets that you might try to exceed to ensure a better new speaker than your current one:
1 - harmonic distortion for the LF and HF better than these 2 graphs. Specifically, 3rd order below -70 for the woofer/mid and -75/-80 for the tweeter.
2 - equivalent tweeter directivity, it's hard to do better than this
3 - faster transient/step response
4 - SPL capabilities yet to be determined.
The other 2 important factors are the quality of the xo and cabinet construction but Salk has got those covered.
And an obvious suggestion: copy all the graphs presented so far to a file for easier future reference and comparison purposes.
Cheers
Attachments
But aren't you also apt to cross to the tweeter lower in a 2-way than a 3-way (say 2kHz instead of 3kHz)? So that band would definitely not timbre match. You could always just cross them all at the best point for the woofer in the 2-way, but that is not likely to be using mid or tweeter best in the 3-way.
But assuming xo and timbre matching is fine, would a Revelator W18 be better at 80 - 2.5kHz (or whatever xo point is) than a Seas L18 at 80-500/600 and the Audax covering higher?
Won't the 1kHz - 2.5kHz signals be cleaner when the driver isn't also responsible for the higher power 80 - 500Hz range?
Actually the Q100 is the 5/14 UniQ, similar to my iQ1 rears. The Q300 is the 6 1/2 like the iQ3.
Slightly less lost in reading them is the better description of my current skills at reading them
Again, I can only offer general information, other are much better at the technical details.
RE: Front, Center, Surround Tonal Matching -
It is not that the matching of the Front and Surround isn't critical, it is just less critical than the Front and Center Tonal Matching.
In most cases, people have to do what they can with what they have, referring to both budget and circumstances. If you can't duplicate your front in the surrounds, say for example, your small room dictates Satellite in the Surround position. It is not the end of the world unless they are grossly mismatched.
On a more commercial level, take these speakers as an example -
Wharfedale Diamond 156 Floorstanding -
Product - Products - Wharfedale Hi-Fi
Diamond 102C Center -
Product - Products - Wharfedale Hi-Fi
Diamond 121 Bookshelf -
Product - Products - Wharfedale Hi-Fi
The Front are 3.5-Way floorstanding, the Center is a twin woofer 2-way, the rear are 2-way bookshelf, and any reasonable person would consider these a matching set of speaker for a 5.0 system. They all use the same drivers, they all use the same design philosophy.
I think you are worrying about things you don't need to worry about. Though certainly they are things you need to consider when you are designing. You don't want to accidentally or intentionally make the speaker sound different.
But speakers from the same brand and series, to the extent that it is possible, are going to create speakers with similar tonal characteristics.
The most critical match are the Front and Center because they create a coherent sound field.
Take this example -
If we have perfectly matched speakers, and a motorcycles crosses the TV screen from left to right, and the sound of the motorcycle moves from Left to Center to Right, what we want to hear is -
Motorcycle - Motorcycle - Motorcycle
With a gross mismatch across the front, you hear -
Motorcycle - Moped - Motorcycle
Ideally, you want all the speakers to be IDENTICAL, but in a vast majority of cases, that is simply not possible. We do the best we can with the budget and circumstances we have.
But the Front THREE are the most critical, and in your case, with some slight change to the position of the Mid/Tweeter, your front Three will be identical.
If you Rear/Side are 2-way build from the same Brand and Series of Drivers, I don't see this as a problem. They will be closely matched, and for rear/side closely is close enough in the practical real world.
Now, if you can literally make all FIVE speaker Identical, that is ideal, but idealism and realism don't always coincide. We do what must be done.
One additional thought, though I think it has been touched on. Look at the HF crossover on the speaker I linked to, they are all very close.
From what I gather, you are going to build the 3-way with a relatively low Bass/Mid crossover. That would probably allow you to keep a very similar Bass/High or Mid/High crossover point.
Again, the use and general tonality of using a Midrange driver it not a disaster, nor is it a matter of idealistic perfection, but in the design, if at all possible, you want the Midrange to reasonably match the other components. It is a consideration, but not to the point of obsession.
Just one man's opinion.
Steve
RE: Front, Center, Surround Tonal Matching -
It is not that the matching of the Front and Surround isn't critical, it is just less critical than the Front and Center Tonal Matching.
In most cases, people have to do what they can with what they have, referring to both budget and circumstances. If you can't duplicate your front in the surrounds, say for example, your small room dictates Satellite in the Surround position. It is not the end of the world unless they are grossly mismatched.
On a more commercial level, take these speakers as an example -
Wharfedale Diamond 156 Floorstanding -
Product - Products - Wharfedale Hi-Fi
Diamond 102C Center -
Product - Products - Wharfedale Hi-Fi
Diamond 121 Bookshelf -
Product - Products - Wharfedale Hi-Fi
The Front are 3.5-Way floorstanding, the Center is a twin woofer 2-way, the rear are 2-way bookshelf, and any reasonable person would consider these a matching set of speaker for a 5.0 system. They all use the same drivers, they all use the same design philosophy.
I think you are worrying about things you don't need to worry about. Though certainly they are things you need to consider when you are designing. You don't want to accidentally or intentionally make the speaker sound different.
But speakers from the same brand and series, to the extent that it is possible, are going to create speakers with similar tonal characteristics.
The most critical match are the Front and Center because they create a coherent sound field.
Take this example -
If we have perfectly matched speakers, and a motorcycles crosses the TV screen from left to right, and the sound of the motorcycle moves from Left to Center to Right, what we want to hear is -
Motorcycle - Motorcycle - Motorcycle
With a gross mismatch across the front, you hear -
Motorcycle - Moped - Motorcycle
Ideally, you want all the speakers to be IDENTICAL, but in a vast majority of cases, that is simply not possible. We do the best we can with the budget and circumstances we have.
But the Front THREE are the most critical, and in your case, with some slight change to the position of the Mid/Tweeter, your front Three will be identical.
If you Rear/Side are 2-way build from the same Brand and Series of Drivers, I don't see this as a problem. They will be closely matched, and for rear/side closely is close enough in the practical real world.
Now, if you can literally make all FIVE speaker Identical, that is ideal, but idealism and realism don't always coincide. We do what must be done.
One additional thought, though I think it has been touched on. Look at the HF crossover on the speaker I linked to, they are all very close.
From what I gather, you are going to build the 3-way with a relatively low Bass/Mid crossover. That would probably allow you to keep a very similar Bass/High or Mid/High crossover point.
Again, the use and general tonality of using a Midrange driver it not a disaster, nor is it a matter of idealistic perfection, but in the design, if at all possible, you want the Midrange to reasonably match the other components. It is a consideration, but not to the point of obsession.
Just one man's opinion.
Steve
Last edited:
Ok, that was good. That made me chuckle.
Too bad the sound of the moving motorcycle is going to be subject to the Doppler effect and so the tone will be changing, so (just for this example) if the timber of the front soundstage is exactly perfect it probably won't matter.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.