I would like to see a quantifiable measurement of these supposedly "lost low level information". Maybe this is the so-called DDR term you like to use? Oh wait, DDR can't be measured. Very easy to say a driver loses info - another thing to substantiate if with some measurements. It's as if you are saying that by using the TC9, we are only operating 12 bits (or whatever) out of the 16bits in a CD wav stream. Like we are throwing the bits away into trash forever. That's simply not true.
If you take harmonic distortion to be at least as low as your lowest significant bit of info then the measured distortion on the TC9 is superior to the FF85WK. I have measured it at -55dB at regular listening levels of 82dB. Some of this has to do with the more advanced suspension, motor, and cone materials. Does the FF85WK even have copper shorting ring?
Here is measured HD of TC9FD:
What does the same plot for FF85WK look like?
Great way to start off 2016 - with a good old round of bashing the TC9 with unsupportable claims and innuendos. Show us plots and data as to how an FF85WKeN is better? Higher sensitivity can be often mistaken for "detail".
If you take harmonic distortion to be at least as low as your lowest significant bit of info then the measured distortion on the TC9 is superior to the FF85WK. I have measured it at -55dB at regular listening levels of 82dB. Some of this has to do with the more advanced suspension, motor, and cone materials. Does the FF85WK even have copper shorting ring?
Here is measured HD of TC9FD:
What does the same plot for FF85WK look like?
Great way to start off 2016 - with a good old round of bashing the TC9 with unsupportable claims and innuendos. Show us plots and data as to how an FF85WKeN is better? Higher sensitivity can be often mistaken for "detail".
It is exactly these kind of posts that I seem to handle quite badly. What amount and form of DSP have you used and where can we check the results?
No need for this opinionated bashing of a driver you simply don't like. Finding out why you don't like it would be a much better way to spend your time.
The low level information these drivers can reveal are plentiful. So far I've had 5 different people cry while listening to my arrays. Not because of the bad TV sound. But because of the emotional connection to the music they heard and felt out of my arrays. That actually made me proud. And yes, I was one of them.
That was during 4 different occasions.
Please stick to promoting your preferred drivers without the unjustified bashing and judgement of other peoples pleasures. I certainly do try here, can't you? Looks like this will end badly again. I'm trying hard to prevent that from happening. Help me here, Dave.
Last edited:
So would i. One of the holey grails AFAIC. And it is not supposed. If not lost, it is there. And lots of places to lose it. The 1st being the recording.
dave
As has been pointed out by Geddes, and recently by Alex at Raal, useless given how it is currently measured.
dave
I think you are misquoting both of them. Now you you added RAAL to your list. I think what he says is very different - you have to look at the CSD in conjunction. Geddes white paper or study of college kids listening to Talking Heads at various levels of horn distortion don't seem very relevant to me. Have you tried the Klippel Distortion test? I can hear -45dB HD and that's uncommon. Perhaps one reason why I like low distortion drivers.
This is really independent of DSP. Once the information is lost, it is lost. Nothing you do will restore that lost information.
I have played with DCX2496, miniDSP, and DSP in my computer. A convolver to fix any remaining FR/phase/room irregualities in an all digital system has great merit, but that won't restore missing information. It will allow for a better presentation of what is there.
One wants to try to fix as many problems as possible before that. One can EQ a resonance for instance, but the resonance is still there. You have simply applied a band-aid.
dave
TC9 is a decent driver for what it is, but it is not the best of anything. I could not live with its limitations. I sent the 1st pair of them out into the field, so people could make their own evaluation.
dave
A good CSD (it should have periods as the time axis and needs to show greater magnitude than they typically do) can tell you a lot. If you have to look at the HD in conjunction with the CSD, then it is the CSD that is providing the information, not the HD plot.
A good CSD is hard to make -- you either need a long time (10s of ms) to the 1st reflection or an anechoic chamber. Toole would say you need an anechoic chamber.
dave
It tests 5 kinds of harmonic distortion in a controlled double blind up-down random test. It is contrived to be an excellent neutral non cheat able test. If Geddes said that it would not surprise me given it is much more sophisticated than his college kids test. It also has a sample of over 2 thousand participants and it keeps growing. It's online and you do it with your favorite headphone or speakers.
http://www.klippel.de/listeningtest/lt/
Everyone should take this test to see their tolerance for harmonic distortion.
http://www.klippel.de/listeningtest/lt/
Everyone should take this test to see their tolerance for harmonic distortion.
Last edited:
Please don't judge what I do if you don't get what it is exactly. I do not post ugly things about some of your recipe's. That's your thing and I politely stay away from judging it or bashing it. DSP can ruin your sound. It takes way more effort to let it make things better.
I've had both results, good and bad and I learn from that. No regrets there.
But once again, why do you keep bashing a driver purely based on a subjective listening test? Should we all listen to you as our main source of driver judgement? Are you the only one "in the know". If that's the case I humbly apologise.
Once you come to understand what Alex at Raal is saying you can actually cross off quite a few of your favourite drivers as unsuitable for HiFi. Should I name them? I won't even if you ask me. Why? Because that would make me do like you do. I don't want to do that.
I'm impressed with the knowledge and insight of Raal. I love what he is doing. But do not start using him in your battles here.
I ask merely one thing, don't like a driver? Fine, but don't make unfunded claims about it. And that's not because it happens to be a driver I selected. It is because it ruins the fun around here. Promote what you like, be polite to other views. How hard can that be?
My excuses go out to the OP, Rafael. I would want to give a piece of advise. If you're able to, go see Derek. Listen to what he does, determine if you like it or not. Try to find someone with an open baffle setup. Again, listen to it and make up your own mind.
Once you find a real clean speaker in a good room, you'd be surprised how loud you can listen to it before it gets stressed or otherwise unpleasant. I only find out how loud I listen by looking at my SPL meter or just try to start a conversation with someone sitting right next to me.
Last edited:
I am not bashing your system (if you take it that way i am sorry). I am critiquing the TC9. Which may be a good driver for the price, but not near as good as X makes it out to be.
Anything used badly can ruin the sound. DSP can do lots of good things, but restoring lost information is not one of them (you could probably find a closed solution mathematical proof of that if you looked)
I believe i quote Toole on that subject already. And Olson. And there is "objective" data that supports that too.
No. I have an opinion. Based on decades of experience and trainin so maybe it has some weight.
I do, and it made perfect sense as soon as i read it.
Sure. Have you listened to them?
So do i. And if he says something that supports my argument i will use it. With some i carry no weight.
Maybe for you. But if it saves someone from being as dissapointed as i was that is a good thing.
We have done at least a few OBs. And listened to others. I did make up my own mind. I still have another OB project in the works.
I know that well. You don't know how loud until you open your mouth to comment to a listening mate. Then you realize you are in long-term hearing damage range.
BTW i have a very good room.
dave
Ok, I'll bite just one more time. Show me the objective data that makes a Vifa TC9 FD 18-08 a worse performer than the FF85wk(EN if you like).
My choice for that particular Vifa driver had nothing to do with it's price. It suited my needs for a clean, non ringing driver. One with a lot of smiles per minute if you use them right. Plenty of evidence of that around here.
I think I'm gonna give up though. I already know the outcome here. All I tried to do is stay polite and stop you from bashing something without showing any evidence other than a subjective view on this very subject. Just my opinion of coarse.
To the other parts of your reply, I already told you I'm not willing to do as you do. I do not bash the works of others without any substance to back it up. I might not even bash it if I stumbled over its faults, just not promote it. At least that's my wish, but I'm human too. I had a recent visitor on my own thread that had a different view from mine. I'm still not proud of the way I reacted to that. Even though it didn't get out of hand.
Look for recent posts by ra7 on my thread or his freshly started own thread. He took a gamble to do some of what I do and he's having a ball already.
I've read many things about satisfied people following your guide lines as well. That's what the FUN is for me. But why the senseless stuff? Really, why?
If you have something to show, show it already.
Coming of the
now to make room for real fun, I hope.This probably will be all cleaned up in the morning (for me) anyway.
Can you see what I'm trying to do? Do you understand why? Let's keep it fun.
One more thing to add: my room isn't nearly as good as I'd like it to be. Though my measurements are taken at the listening position.
I should not complain, but know I could do better. I've seen better, without hearing that particular room. And I've been in better rooms.
But I work with the room. Works very well and I understand why it works. But it still is a relatively normal living room.
Last edited:
A couple of thoughts - the LS50 is described on KEF's website as a mini- monitor "inspired by" the LS3/5a via their collaboration with the BBC in the early 70s on - very compact near field field monitor . As historied and legendary as this design maybe, it- and many such targeted designs - will have natural constraints, which is perhaps what you're encountering, and nothing more mysterious than that.
You are likely a candidate for something on a larger scale than any such sized commercial
, or DIY design, such as the delightful Fostex design exampled by Dave. I own a pair of Bernie's little gems ( in solid Walnut), and have built several of that and the more rectangular version. The FF85WK- in either stock or polka-dotted livery- is one of those drivers that punches above its weight class, but it will nevertheless fail to defy the laws of physics at both the bottom end of the frequency range, and at attainable SPLs.
However, once relieved of the bottom several octaves, to as high as 300-400Hz, and supplemented by sufficiently torquey woofers, it and numerous other 3-4" FR listed above or to follow , can present big soundstage and excellent imaging with ease.
My basement system is currently host to an actively bi-amped system consisting of Alpair7.3 and a pair of A12PW per side. No trouble playing as loud as I can stand , and doing "big image / soundstage" in a 320sq ft room, powered by an Onkyo surround receiver that when realistically de-rated for the real world, will have less power than your Creek.
You are likely a candidate for something on a larger scale than any such sized commercial
, or DIY design, such as the delightful Fostex design exampled by Dave. I own a pair of Bernie's little gems ( in solid Walnut), and have built several of that and the more rectangular version. The FF85WK- in either stock or polka-dotted livery- is one of those drivers that punches above its weight class, but it will nevertheless fail to defy the laws of physics at both the bottom end of the frequency range, and at attainable SPLs.
However, once relieved of the bottom several octaves, to as high as 300-400Hz, and supplemented by sufficiently torquey woofers, it and numerous other 3-4" FR listed above or to follow , can present big soundstage and excellent imaging with ease.
My basement system is currently host to an actively bi-amped system consisting of Alpair7.3 and a pair of A12PW per side. No trouble playing as loud as I can stand , and doing "big image / soundstage" in a 320sq ft room, powered by an Onkyo surround receiver that when realistically de-rated for the real world, will have less power than your Creek.
Attachments
If we had a way of measuring that, i would. We are closer to being able to do a proper blind test than that (take some bucks to do that).
And just because an objective measure does not exist does not mean the phenomenon is not there.
To quote Floyd Toole:
The only really important thing is whether you enjoy them, and obviously you do.
I do not enjoy a single pair of TC9. And if i had 25 x the cost of the TC9 i'd just buy a better driver, and use 1 or 2 /side.
dave
You never even played them fairly - put them in the same FAST box that your FF85WKeNresude in. Adjust the levels to be the same. They are slightly less sensitive than your FF85WKeN. But instead I think all you have listened to them in are sealed boxes with no bass support or with matched levels. When you integrate it well and adjust for level match - the blind tests show it was the winner in round 1.
How many 3.5in drivers truly grab us when in a simple film range sealed. ?
How many 3.5in drivers truly grab us when in a simple film range sealed. ?
Much traffic this thread.
If you like progress in speaker system verse in past and improve on output is more true to input from played track there is no way around good objective data for speaker system on paper. When planet10 and chrisb try to push for below acoustic response from a FF85WK without correction we do not get closer to goal and below 10F and TC9FD in uncorrected condition will be way more true to input waves amplitude and timing and probably also throw a lot better CSD plot because peak an dips make a ringing resonance that continue longer in time than notes original attack and decay time.
Regarding woofer yes i mean sub in sealed or OB so as we system wise can call it FAST system and LS50 is the full ranger.
Glad you will visit Overkill Audio and probably learn what direction you prefer and feel free if you prefer sound from a Coral full ranger and go that way no problem time will tell.
Attachments
How do you know? You haven't heard FF85wk. You are specualting based on far to little information.
And FF85wKeN does have correction... but at the source of the problem, not a band-aid as EQ does.
dave
wesayso (appropriate name in this discussion), being polite is not something you are trying to stay, it's something you are by nature as a gentleman.
Anyway, you can be far more effectively venomous by being overtly polite, than by just slinging out generic insults.
If Dave says something is so, there is probably a very good reason. All those years of experience don't come cheap.
Im not doubting that the TC9 has some good qualities, and in an array things usually change by a lot with regards to driver characteristics. Not only does the individual driver only have to perform a fraction of the work, there is also the interference pattern of all those drivers, how they look to the amp and the different (some say unnatural) frequency dependent falloff of a line emitter and supposedly strange imaging qualities. Now, I haven't hear more than one line array, so I don't have empirical experience but there is science. This should not be construed as a negative criticism, just a call for a slightly more scientific healthy critical approach.
It should be very strange if there isn't at least some connection between bandwidth an price.
I know hifi is traditionally seen as the fools gold and quack paradise where bags of sand and repackaged electrical cables can be sold at ridiculous prices, but that big of a difference in cost benefit ratio (TC9 vs drivers costing several times the price) would have been found out and leaked to the saner regions of audiodom by now. Not even Tymphany themselves regard it as more than a good bang for the buck.
Anyway, you can be far more effectively venomous by being overtly polite, than by just slinging out generic insults.
If Dave says something is so, there is probably a very good reason. All those years of experience don't come cheap.
Im not doubting that the TC9 has some good qualities, and in an array things usually change by a lot with regards to driver characteristics. Not only does the individual driver only have to perform a fraction of the work, there is also the interference pattern of all those drivers, how they look to the amp and the different (some say unnatural) frequency dependent falloff of a line emitter and supposedly strange imaging qualities. Now, I haven't hear more than one line array, so I don't have empirical experience but there is science. This should not be construed as a negative criticism, just a call for a slightly more scientific healthy critical approach.
It should be very strange if there isn't at least some connection between bandwidth an price.
I know hifi is traditionally seen as the fools gold and quack paradise where bags of sand and repackaged electrical cables can be sold at ridiculous prices, but that big of a difference in cost benefit ratio (TC9 vs drivers costing several times the price) would have been found out and leaked to the saner regions of audiodom by now. Not even Tymphany themselves regard it as more than a good bang for the buck.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.