SPL differences measured how ? If you're referring to the steady state (un-gated direct + reflected) response, that's not particularly meaningful at high frquencies above say 500Hz where the direct response dominates our perception.
So while it's not possible to make a speaker that gives a flat steady state response at all frquencies in any normal room due to room reflections, nor is it necessary. (fortunately!)
It is possible to make a speaker that provides a flat and smooth direct response over a reasonable listening window however, as this is independent of the room.
It's easy to hear the difference between a speaker whose direct response is +/- 2dB versus one whose direct response is +/- 6dB even if the steady state response of both is worse than +/- 10-15dB due to room reflections...
Last edited:
Oh definitely, the room is very important, it's just that measuring an un-gated room frequency response won't tell you if you have a good sounding room or not.
For that you need to look at direct to reflected ratio at the listening point, decay time, (RT30) and arrival time / amplitude of individual reflections (ETC curve) including the directions they're arriving from. Then you can start to get an idea of whether the room is good or not.
An un-gated room response can look pretty horrible (and typically does) but apart from a few hundred Hz down where it does matter its nothing to worry about and doesn't tell us if we have good speakers or a good room.
Most of the time it is in the demo rooms a good speaker looses and a bad speaker wins.
example is Bose demo rooms. they ask a hefty premium for crappy loudspeakers but most of the people go out impressed after an audition.(Audiophiles excluded)
On the topic of subjective reviews being worthless...its non-sense and I will supply one example. The HDS tweeter measures great but repeatedly gets subjective reviews of sounding sterile, dry, and forward even from madisound who sells it. I bought it and agree. Subjective reviews can be misleading though. John K's review of the HDS tweeter was pretty positive. That review was only based on numbers and not sound but it illustrates the point. Low distortion doesnt indicate perfect parts. Yes, the crossover can be blamed but funny how just about any setting with an active xover with some other tweeters yeilds great sound.
When something gets a poor review you should avoid it because you can be garanteed that it will kill the resale value of the part, amp, ect to nothing. In terms of using subjective reviews to the positive, I use it to point me in the direction of parts that may be good due to a number of positive comments indicating that at least someone has used it to their satisfaction.
I will never buy a part again based solely on measurements.
When something gets a poor review you should avoid it because you can be garanteed that it will kill the resale value of the part, amp, ect to nothing. In terms of using subjective reviews to the positive, I use it to point me in the direction of parts that may be good due to a number of positive comments indicating that at least someone has used it to their satisfaction.
I will never buy a part again based solely on measurements.
Last edited:
Over on the HTguide forums the opposite is said, people love how the HDS tweeter sounds. This just goes to prove that subjective impressions really do count for naught.
I use the HDS in a wave-guide and love the way it sounds. When I first implemented it it sounded a little forward, but that was corrected with a slight xover change.
If you're using it in an addon wave guide, it's no longer the same tweeter is it ? Two of its key parameters have now changed dramatically - directivity, and it's raw frequency response. Diffraction on typical baffles will be greatly different (less) too.
Not exactly an apples to apples comparison. What prompted you to install it in a waveguide, and did you "love" the way it sounded without the waveguide ?
Really I suppose the point was that the implementation is far more important then the tweeter itself.
No not really apples to apples, but most likely all the subjective opinions of others were not apples to apples either. More like 'I used the tweeter in this design and thought X of it' which isn't really any different to myself.
I never actually used it without the wave-guide as that wasn't the idea.
I guess if there is one positive view it makes your case. What does Madisound know...
I recall I liked it for home theater too since 'bite' and 'forward' make for a more dynamic presentation. For music it gets tiring unless electronic is your thing. I'll agree its only a piece of the puzzle but I wouldnt say it counts for naught. Its far from laid back and if thats what you're after, its not your tweeter. Few people used a waveguide so I dont think your assessment is going to be representative of how most will use it.
Obviously there will be people who like that particular type of sound and a description of what it tends toward may help. In short, not everyone is going to dislike forward. Some are going to like it regardless because they have the distortion test results going through their mind as they listen.
Last edited:
I would guess that you can probably change the crossover enough to get the tonal balance to change in a way that would be more pleasing.
In the wave-guide it produces the most clear, easy to listen to treble, certainly not fatiguing/tiring/forward. Especially as I have a mild cause of hyperacusis in my left ear, I am extremely sensitive to that kind of thing with lots of speakers being completely unlistenable.
In the wave-guide it produces the most clear, easy to listen to treble, certainly not fatiguing/tiring/forward. Especially as I have a mild cause of hyperacusis in my left ear, I am extremely sensitive to that kind of thing with lots of speakers being completely unlistenable.
I'd like to try a waveguide set-up with a number of tweters.
Which waveguide did you use?
Hey guys,
After doing some research on the KEF Q900, and reading the apparently good reviews, and seeing the apparently good measurements, I made the plunge. Normally, I would not think of spending this much on, well, anything really. But it was a good deal with several hundred dollars off MSRP.
Anyway, got the speakers and man, are they bad. Strident treble, hollow midrange, coupled with high distortion. I measured them, and sure enough, the treble is tilted up from 1 kHz on. Almost a 7-8 db rise to 10 kHz. The midrange and bass are not bad... quite even, but the tilted up treble spoils everything.
Now, my question is, why does a company like KEF design their flagship (granted in the economy class) model this way? Do they do it to distinguish their top end models from the cheaper ones? Is this what audiophiles in general have gotten used to?
Another lessen learned is to really dig deep into what Stereophile is presenting as measurements. I was astounded that my measurements were so off from those in Stereophile. At the same time, I was hearing the tilted up response. Upon closer inspection, the graph in Stereophile is in fact the spatially averaged response that includes vertical and horizontal off axis measurements. It is still slightly tilted up in the treble. No wonder the on axis looked the way it did.
I will be posting the measurements later today in a separate thread. I just wanted to get some thoughts from you guys on this.
After doing some research on the KEF Q900, and reading the apparently good reviews, and seeing the apparently good measurements, I made the plunge. Normally, I would not think of spending this much on, well, anything really. But it was a good deal with several hundred dollars off MSRP.
Anyway, got the speakers and man, are they bad. Strident treble, hollow midrange, coupled with high distortion. I measured them, and sure enough, the treble is tilted up from 1 kHz on. Almost a 7-8 db rise to 10 kHz. The midrange and bass are not bad... quite even, but the tilted up treble spoils everything.
Now, my question is, why does a company like KEF design their flagship (granted in the economy class) model this way? Do they do it to distinguish their top end models from the cheaper ones? Is this what audiophiles in general have gotten used to?
Another lessen learned is to really dig deep into what Stereophile is presenting as measurements. I was astounded that my measurements were so off from those in Stereophile. At the same time, I was hearing the tilted up response. Upon closer inspection, the graph in Stereophile is in fact the spatially averaged response that includes vertical and horizontal off axis measurements. It is still slightly tilted up in the treble. No wonder the on axis looked the way it did.
I will be posting the measurements later today in a separate thread. I just wanted to get some thoughts from you guys on this.
Last edited:
You'd be surprised at how likely that might be if a wrong part was installed during manufacture.. Mistakes happen, OTOH I take it that you are saying that this botched response was deliberate..
And it might well be.I've worked for a number of manufacturers (audio and otherwise) and can attest from personal experience that mistakes happen and get all the way to the field before they are caught - a worst case scenario that happens wherever humans are present.
While I respect measurements and appreciate that a flatlined response is a theoretical ideal from which we should all start, to my ears, all good sounding speakers probably have a tendency to display a 'smiley face' on a parametric Eq graph. That is, good solid bass-smooth mids-sparkly treble. The Proac house sound is a good example of this.
Personally, I also like a slightly biting upper mid to lower treble transition, which adds detail and excitement to music.
Totally agree with Planet10's statement about the need for a good sounding speaker to have high levels of Downward Dynamic Range. A speaker that can produce it's best at the lowest levels - is also usually the most natural sounding one. Electrostatics excel at this, as do Accutons/Yamaha berylliums/ribbons.
Steve.
Personally, I also like a slightly biting upper mid to lower treble transition, which adds detail and excitement to music.
Totally agree with Planet10's statement about the need for a good sounding speaker to have high levels of Downward Dynamic Range. A speaker that can produce it's best at the lowest levels - is also usually the most natural sounding one. Electrostatics excel at this, as do Accutons/Yamaha berylliums/ribbons.
Steve.
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.