The Ultimate monitor.... which one is better?

[chuck55]

"With those cabinets and that amp you aren't going to have ultimate anything"
LOL, so true. But I'm having fun. Yea, nothing ultimate here but 4" full range does have some redeeming qualities. I'm also playing with different sources as my CDR500 seems a bit bright.

Thanks for the info on the Crown. I can get a Parasound Zamp / TDK 20k pot. for the same price.

Tell us how the Fostex go. Sounds like a good synergy.

I heard the Eggleston Fountaine II's. Nice speaker and similar presentation as the Reynauds. Nothing harsh at all. Very cohesive and detailed in a non-hyped sort of way. To be critical, sort of flat and lifeless and all recordings started to sound the same. Better at higher volumes which leads me back to the statement that a speaker needs to come to life at low volume levels to catch all the little nuances (even at high levels).

Re coaxial speakers: Similar also to the bigger 8" single driver units like Fostex F200A that Bob Brines uses. The soundstaging gets sort of funky, even in the sweet spot. I was on that kick for a while and heard the big Tannoy Westminsters (which are great for co-axial - the best I've ever heard) right after hearing the F200. Went to a dealer who had KEF and then he switches to Snell K7's. The soundstage just opened up. The KEF's were like looking down a tube. And the Snell's are advertised as having only +/-15 degree dispersion window - must be on the same kick as Revels in reducing room interactions.

Even the single drivers I've heard may be good on axis but anything over 3" and especially 4", dispersion starts to suffer. Also listening from another room sounds not so good. Whereas my B&W sounded wonderful. That shows the B&W had a good power response. Single driver does not.

 

[chuck55]

Crossovers are evil - to be avoided at all costs - there is no such thing as a "good crossover", but some are better than others. But a system without at least one is simply not viable. More than that is asking for trouble.

Gedlee, how about a full-range single driver but use parametric eq to even out the FR and notch and spikes? That is, don't use baffle step correction, do it electronically before the amp.

 

[Spasticteapot]

Gedlee, how about a full-range single driver but use parametric eq to even out the FR and notch and spikes? That is, don't use baffle step correction, do it electronically before the amp.

The quick answer on this one is that unless you're using some immense electrostatic panels, there's no single driver setup on earth that can get anywhere near to the distortion and dynamic range of a multi-way speaker.

 

[chuck55]

Generally true but have you heard Bob Brines Fostex in TL?

 

[gedlee]

Gedlee, how about a full-range single driver but use parametric eq to even out the FR and notch and spikes? That is, don't use baffle step correction, do it electronically before the amp.

Have you ever looked at the polar response of any full range driver? I have. It's simply not acceptable and no amount of EQ is going to correct it. Like it or not at least two drivers will always be required for a really good system, and, more than that is also a bad idea since it can be done with two.

 

[PeteMcK]

Re: ‘if one believes that Geddes work on distortion perception is valid, then Mr. K's great attention to distortion is not of much utility.’ (post 14)
I think that’s making too much of Earls work. I just had a look at his papers, and apart from a couple of quibbles (I’d like to see the tests done with a much larger sample, & I think some of the regression lines draw are rather aspirational…), I’m happy to go along with his conclusions. However, I don’t think he is saying that low distortion in drivers is unimportant – in fact, his finding that “ Distortion by-products of any kind are likely to be more perceptible at lower signal levels than at higher signal levels” supports the need for low distortion drivers.

 

[planet10]

s draw are rather aspirational…), I’m happy to go along with his conclusions. However, I don’t think he is saying that low distortion in drivers is unimportant – in fact, his finding that “ Distortion by-products of any kind are likely to be more perceptible at lower signal levels than at higher signal levels” supports the need for low distortion drivers.

I don't believe he is either, but he is saying that the kind of distrotion you find in the oft-quited measurements (THD) is.

dave

 

[planet10]

Have you ever looked at the polar response of any full range driver? I have. It's simply not acceptable and no amount of EQ is going to correct it. Like it or not at least two drivers will always be required for a really good system, and, more than that is also a bad idea since it can be done with two.

I will disagree with you. I have heard some really 1st class 1-way systems, but if you want to make them play really loud and have lots of bottom, you end up with a 2-way. I like the XO somewhere in the 80-300 Hz range in that case.

dave

 

[PeteMcK]

re’ he is saying that the kind of distrotion you find in the oft-quited measurements (THD) is.’
P10, I agree, but if you look at Zaphs measurements, he is not showing THD, but the individual components of the distortion spectrum...

 

[gedlee]

Re: ‘if one believes that Geddes work on distortion perception is valid, then Mr. K's great attention to distortion is not of much utility.’ (post 14)
I think that’s making too much of Earls work. I just had a look at his papers, and apart from a couple of quibbles (I’d like to see the tests done with a much larger sample, & I think some of the regression lines draw are rather aspirational…), I’m happy to go along with his conclusions. However, I don’t think he is saying that low distortion in drivers is unimportant – in fact, his finding that “ Distortion by-products of any kind are likely to be more perceptible at lower signal levels than at higher signal levels” supports the need for low distortion drivers.

I've learned a few things since that paper - everything there holds up as many others have found as well, but I now find that, in general, the kinds of nonlinearities that are most audible are virtually never present in a mechanical system. They are often present in electronics! Mechanical systems, loudspeakers in particular, tend to have very low order nonlinearities (it takes more force for a higher order nonlinearity than a low order one). This makes the nonlinear distortion in a loudspeaker very nearly inaudible. As P10 notes, I totally discount the importance of distortion - THD and IMD - in a loudspeaker system. This is completely in synch with Floyd Toole, Sean Olive, Lauri Fincham and just about anyone else you find in the Pro world. Not here at DIY of course, but then this is a different world.

 

[chuck55]

RE: polar response, Gedlee, I see where you are coming from. Some single drivers have a rising response curve to try and compensate. To my ears, you get a bright speaker but the same problem.
Also, I think I am finding you are right about electronics causing the noxious distortions. All the while I thought it was my single driver causing the problem but I switched to my Denon mini-system CDP and ..... no more ear pain! So either it's distortion in the Marantz or the lower powered Denon is not pushing the driver into a harsh breakup mode. What do you think?

Does good polar response = good power response? Aren't they the same thing?


What do you think about Snell's J7 which limits dispersion to +/- 15 degrees?

http://www.snellacoustics.com/J7SpecSheet.pdf

How does this compare to your designs? Looks like you go for a wider dispersion. My room is only 13' x 15' so anything over 15 degrees doesn't matter much as far as the sweet spot.

 

[gedlee]

What do you think?

Its plausible, but quick tests like that can be very misleading. I doubt that it was the speakers however.

Does good polar response = good power response? Aren't they the same thing?

Thats basicly true, yes

What do you think about Snell's J7 which limits dispersion to +/- 15 degrees?

Seriously - do you believe things like that? It's simply not possible.

How does this compare to your designs? Looks like you go for a wider dispersion.

Well quite honestly they don't compare - they will be in entirely different worlds as far as sound quality goes.

Looks like you go for a wider dispersion.

I go for honesty and reality, and that Snell claim is neither.

 

[chuck55]

Okay, how about this Scan Speak?

12M/4831G00 | Scan-Speak

or something from Seas:

http://www.madisound.com/catalog/PDF/h1455.pdf


I listen on-axis and usually 65-70db, never louder than 80dB

 

[Inductor]

Okay, how about this Scan Speak?

12M/4831G00 | Scan-Speak

or something from Seas:

http://www.madisound.com/catalog/PDF/h1455.pdf


I listen on-axis and usually 65-70db, never louder than 80dB

chuck, I Xreference with this one (hope you don't mind) http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/multi-way/161622-new-drivers-bx8a.html#post2092237

I thought this thread was going dead. If that's for your main driver (mid-woofer) the first has very high Fs and not good for a woofer or mid-woofer, and the second driver does not extend well after 1KHz, in reallity it doesn't extend after 500Hz very smooth (you need to xover at 2K5/3KHz). That can change in a box, so the best bet is to listen and dump it. Seas is very nice, it deserves the try.