Must be lonely being the only one who can relate numbers with perceived sound
Don't be so naive Jay ....
I don't know me being naive (that could be true). But if you mean you can ALSO relate the 300-400Hz thing with perception (meaning you can hear this magic number), then, show me where I have said that you can't do it? But post all your works then I will know, I believe. Looks to me you made psychological assumption here.
Many people argue with the benefit of having low crossover point in normal two way. 1kHz to 2kHz is difficult for most tweeters. Of course there are many pros for this low fx, but one thing that I have observed is, if you cross at 3kHz, unless you try, you won't get good phase overlap at 350Hz.
What do you guy's think of the dayton amtpro-4 ... can it really be crossed at 800hz and is it really the best you can have from 800hz to 8-12kz..
compared to fullrangers..
compared to B&G neo10,neo8
(if it's not the best.. can you tell me why (metallic sounding or low dynamics or bad dispersion etc ) and what you would recommend)
Also what's you take on fast decay without ressonance spot (csd) versus distortion... what is most important for you.. both.. are low decay is a must and distortion can be fix by adding more drivers...
The cellestion AN2075 CSD is very impressive ( voice coil magazine) but distortion is no where near the cheap vifa tc7... (maybe an array to lower distortion would do the trick but i still wonder if distortion will be a problem)
For big sound in the midbass, would it be better to handle 50-800hz and under with a bigger woofer (2x8inch) or cross lower and handle 50-200/300 with the bigger woofer (8,10,12,15)..
My music is electronic music with beats so integrity of the bass and midbass is primordial.. also slam in that range is important (this is why i think 800hz is better but i wonder)
compared to fullrangers..
compared to B&G neo10,neo8
(if it's not the best.. can you tell me why (metallic sounding or low dynamics or bad dispersion etc ) and what you would recommend)
Also what's you take on fast decay without ressonance spot (csd) versus distortion... what is most important for you.. both.. are low decay is a must and distortion can be fix by adding more drivers...
The cellestion AN2075 CSD is very impressive ( voice coil magazine) but distortion is no where near the cheap vifa tc7... (maybe an array to lower distortion would do the trick but i still wonder if distortion will be a problem)
For big sound in the midbass, would it be better to handle 50-800hz and under with a bigger woofer (2x8inch) or cross lower and handle 50-200/300 with the bigger woofer (8,10,12,15)..
My music is electronic music with beats so integrity of the bass and midbass is primordial.. also slam in that range is important (this is why i think 800hz is better but i wonder)
Last edited:
IMHO implementation is the utterly most important thing. Period.
Going ballistic in exotic drivers is the number one mistake that many DIY speaker builders make. Both economically and sonically. Yes there are differences but almost always these are masked by other more fundamental problems.
I heard the latest ceremic Raidho speakers. Yes, they did detail and frequency extension, but to me they lacked focus mid articulation. Exotic approaches might have helped them to push driver ringing further up, but it couldn't help on the fundamental problem with the driver integration in the 1-4kHz region. Big, smooth and extended but IMO not realistic sound. Another issue was that the speakers experienced voicing (again IMO) changed a lot depending on listening position. Price tags doesn't change physics, I guess...
On the old soft vs hard cone discussion, I have heard great speakers in either camp. Hard and soft cones do sound different. It's just that the overall voicing seem to account for greater differences than the cone materials used. Also, I found that XO ringing and coloration usually is far more degrading to the perceived reproduction than the cone resonances they are intended to suppress. The farther upstreams in the chain a source of coloration/distortion is, the more it affects the experienced sound. Hard cones cannot cure jitter problems, only expose them.
Another point about hard vs soft cones is that they basically serve very different ideas about what a cone is supposed to do. Hard cones are about pistonic movement whereas soft cones are about controlled cone flexing where the voice coil and center dome begin to act as a small driver beyond 800-1100 hz (usually for 5-7" midwoofers). This gives totally different acoustic characteristics. The former will have an almost mathematically defined per its SD on- and off axis roll off. The later will in principle behave as two drivers in one where the transition from one to the other is very critical -and somewhat an art to make "right". You would in other words never use them interchangeably, but rather think the entire speaker differently depending on which you choose to go for.
None of the above can be saved by XO- nor box design down the road if they haven't been carefully selected. And by careful I mean thinking hard about the Nth order consequences that one choice implies on other elements of the design. Hard domes' natural roll off and ribbons unavoidable low end limitations are not impossible to integrate successfully, but Raidho didn't pull it off that well IMHO.
(Disclaimer: all of the above is of course IMHO -and its getting very late)
cheers,
Going ballistic in exotic drivers is the number one mistake that many DIY speaker builders make. Both economically and sonically. Yes there are differences but almost always these are masked by other more fundamental problems.
I heard the latest ceremic Raidho speakers. Yes, they did detail and frequency extension, but to me they lacked focus mid articulation. Exotic approaches might have helped them to push driver ringing further up, but it couldn't help on the fundamental problem with the driver integration in the 1-4kHz region. Big, smooth and extended but IMO not realistic sound. Another issue was that the speakers experienced voicing (again IMO) changed a lot depending on listening position. Price tags doesn't change physics, I guess...
On the old soft vs hard cone discussion, I have heard great speakers in either camp. Hard and soft cones do sound different. It's just that the overall voicing seem to account for greater differences than the cone materials used. Also, I found that XO ringing and coloration usually is far more degrading to the perceived reproduction than the cone resonances they are intended to suppress. The farther upstreams in the chain a source of coloration/distortion is, the more it affects the experienced sound. Hard cones cannot cure jitter problems, only expose them.
Another point about hard vs soft cones is that they basically serve very different ideas about what a cone is supposed to do. Hard cones are about pistonic movement whereas soft cones are about controlled cone flexing where the voice coil and center dome begin to act as a small driver beyond 800-1100 hz (usually for 5-7" midwoofers). This gives totally different acoustic characteristics. The former will have an almost mathematically defined per its SD on- and off axis roll off. The later will in principle behave as two drivers in one where the transition from one to the other is very critical -and somewhat an art to make "right". You would in other words never use them interchangeably, but rather think the entire speaker differently depending on which you choose to go for.
None of the above can be saved by XO- nor box design down the road if they haven't been carefully selected. And by careful I mean thinking hard about the Nth order consequences that one choice implies on other elements of the design. Hard domes' natural roll off and ribbons unavoidable low end limitations are not impossible to integrate successfully, but Raidho didn't pull it off that well IMHO.
(Disclaimer: all of the above is of course IMHO -and its getting very late)
cheers,
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.