It's only a variable if you vary the tweeter which would be silly.
A robust, low distortion tweeter in a waveguide would do. Then you could run all participants up to where they match the tweeters dispersion.
I had a candidate in mind but the maximum sensible xover frequency for that would be 2.5kHz. Anything above that would just distract and make such a test futile and misleading.
As for full-range: Been there, done that and have no interest in ever going back to that.
A robust, low distortion tweeter in a waveguide would do. Then you could run all participants up to where they match the tweeters dispersion.
I had a candidate in mind but the maximum sensible xover frequency for that would be 2.5kHz. Anything above that would just distract and make such a test futile and misleading.
As for full-range: Been there, done that and have no interest in ever going back to that.
Jon, The voiced speech of a typical adult male will have a fundamental frequency from 85 to 180 Hz, and that of a typical adult female from 165 to 255 Hz. Guitar covers ~80-2.1Khz. Your test frequency covers 400hz to 7000hz. How can the "World's best midrange" not cover human speech?
The argument can be made that a speaker optimized for the 100Hz - 2Khz range better covers vocal and popular instrument fundamental frequencies. example: the Kairos 5.5" Satori covers this range.
===================
WIKI: Vocal range is the measure of the breadth of pitches that a human voice can phonate. The most common application of the term "vocal range" is within the context of singing, where it is used as one of the major defining characteristics for classifying singing voices into groups known as voice types.
The following are the general vocal ranges associated with each voice type using scientific pitch notation where middle C=C4. Some singers within these voice types may be able to sing somewhat higher or lower:
Soprano: C4 – C6
Mezzo-soprano: A3 – A5
Contralto: F3 – F5
Tenor: C3 – C5
Baritone: F2 – F4
Bass: E2 – E4
In terms of frequency, human voices are roughly in the range of 80 Hz to 1100 Hz (that is, E2 to C6) for normal male and female voices together.
Fundamental Speech frequency
The voiced speech of a typical adult male will have a fundamental frequency from 85 to 180 Hz, and that of a typical adult female from 165 to 255 Hz.
The argument can be made that a speaker optimized for the 100Hz - 2Khz range better covers vocal and popular instrument fundamental frequencies. example: the Kairos 5.5" Satori covers this range.
===================
WIKI: Vocal range is the measure of the breadth of pitches that a human voice can phonate. The most common application of the term "vocal range" is within the context of singing, where it is used as one of the major defining characteristics for classifying singing voices into groups known as voice types.
The following are the general vocal ranges associated with each voice type using scientific pitch notation where middle C=C4. Some singers within these voice types may be able to sing somewhat higher or lower:
Soprano: C4 – C6
Mezzo-soprano: A3 – A5
Contralto: F3 – F5
Tenor: C3 – C5
Baritone: F2 – F4
Bass: E2 – E4
In terms of frequency, human voices are roughly in the range of 80 Hz to 1100 Hz (that is, E2 to C6) for normal male and female voices together.
Fundamental Speech frequency
The voiced speech of a typical adult male will have a fundamental frequency from 85 to 180 Hz, and that of a typical adult female from 165 to 255 Hz.
The other problem with the tweeter is you unbalance even more the overall listening experience. The lack of lower frequencies will be downright annoying. (...if you're using the tweeter above 7khz as well of course)
But still, that might worth a try.
I forgot to mention a very important point:
For testing purposes, EXCERPTS of music will be carefully chosen. Excerpts that will essentially cover the aimed frequencies and, most probably, excerpts that peaks in the middle of the said range (+/- 800hz-3500hz).
Needless to say it will help a lot.
Final music selection is not completed yet and your help is most welcome as well.
So far we have the following:
- The pan piper - Miles Davis
- Stimela (the ''famous'' shout part) - Hugh Masakela
- Time (clocks part) - Pink Floyd
- Qualsevol Nit Pot Sortir El Sol - Albert Pla
- Me and a gun - Tori Amos
Also some well-recorded chinese percussion, Nick Drake, Don Byron, etc...
Great attention will be put on the selection so it covers a very wide range of sounds, textures and dynamics.
Probably hundred+ of people will pass this test (audiophiles and non-audiophiles) and we will collect as much data as we can possibly do.
That means in the subjective part of the test we might end up with preferences for specific driver's/music excerpts combo. Which is actually far from being unusable data, on the contrary...
We might also end up with one or two drivers able to perform well on all excerpts...
Bottomline: there is many things that can happen and that is why we want to make this test.
For testing purposes, EXCERPTS of music will be carefully chosen. Excerpts that will essentially cover the aimed frequencies and, most probably, excerpts that peaks in the middle of the said range (+/- 800hz-3500hz).
Needless to say it will help a lot.
Final music selection is not completed yet and your help is most welcome as well.
So far we have the following:
- The pan piper - Miles Davis
- Stimela (the ''famous'' shout part) - Hugh Masakela
- Time (clocks part) - Pink Floyd
- Qualsevol Nit Pot Sortir El Sol - Albert Pla
- Me and a gun - Tori Amos
Also some well-recorded chinese percussion, Nick Drake, Don Byron, etc...
Great attention will be put on the selection so it covers a very wide range of sounds, textures and dynamics.
Probably hundred+ of people will pass this test (audiophiles and non-audiophiles) and we will collect as much data as we can possibly do.
That means in the subjective part of the test we might end up with preferences for specific driver's/music excerpts combo. Which is actually far from being unusable data, on the contrary...
We might also end up with one or two drivers able to perform well on all excerpts...
Bottomline: there is many things that can happen and that is why we want to make this test.
I think to do a comparison, the enclosure, the XO, the bass unit, the tweeter unit, and all signal train upstream and downstream needs to be fixed. The only variable is the driver and the only knob to adjust is the level matching. Otherwise, you are not comparing the effect of the driver. That is how I did my subjective blind tests mentioned earlier.
The main general conclusion that can be drawn from those tests is that people prefer a driver with a flat frequency response. They also seem to prefer drivers that have a good ability to render high frequencies. But that was for a full range, since you will XO over to a tweeter here at 7kHz (which I assume most mids can hit), that won't be an issue. It will come down to how flat the response is first and foremost. That is the only response that will sound good with ALL genre's of music. The two drivers that won were the Vifa TC9FD and the ScanSpeak 10F/8424, both known for their exceptional smooth and flat frequency response.
The main general conclusion that can be drawn from those tests is that people prefer a driver with a flat frequency response. They also seem to prefer drivers that have a good ability to render high frequencies. But that was for a full range, since you will XO over to a tweeter here at 7kHz (which I assume most mids can hit), that won't be an issue. It will come down to how flat the response is first and foremost. That is the only response that will sound good with ALL genre's of music. The two drivers that won were the Vifa TC9FD and the ScanSpeak 10F/8424, both known for their exceptional smooth and flat frequency response.
Lets not turn this into a debate over what frequency range a 'midrange' should cover - the OP specifically gave a frequency range to avoid confusion as to what a 'midrange' entailed and there is plenty of interest for testing 400Hz up, myself included
Actually there is an answer to that:
If we say 10 octaves 20hz-20,000hz (20hz-20,480hz), then the by-the-book mid portion is precisely 213hz to 2266hz.
They also happen to have low non-linear distortion
Fair enough. Personally my interest is crossing the 'mid' higher, since it avoids the need for excessively large crossover components.
You can find a DSP that is not too large...
Yes, like i said that is ''by-the-book'' mid range. As a speaker designer i can say we can cheat that ''rule''. A lot.
First of all, i tend to prefer 4-way than 3-way config as its always a compromise with the 3-way, no matter which selection of transducer. I'm not saying 4-way is the perfect solution but it helps a lot. Subwoofer integration, to begin with...
I also tend to shift the mid xover higher. I had the ATC in my system for many years and i used it between 400-600hz up to 1,800-2,800hz but when i changed it for Seas exotic F8 and then Voxativ, i was able to ''beat'' the RAAL 140-15D and push it out of his territory by 1 octave. Which is a lot!
The big difference in our test is we will flatten ALL drivers using DSP, all RTA-measured and SPL-matched.
We have no choice doing that, otherwise it will be to compare apple and oranges.
Anyway, to my opinion; in 2015 there is no reason not using a DSP in any high-end speaker system. Especially 3 or 4-way...
Hi,
This is pie in the sky stuff. If you do that and limit SPL,
and limit the range to 400Hz to whatever, the chances
of statistically meaningful DB results are very near nil.
rgds, sreten.
no offense but you already comparing apples with oranges, main purpose of mid drivers is to work perfectly around 300-3K hz so if you plan to push them to 7K majority of them will fail as this frequency isn't their territory (except few of them) so I understand what you are trying to achieve but don't see benefit of it's outcome unless this thread is called "best fullrange" and you choose appropriate drivers, anyway good luck with your testing
Depends on what set of compromises you choose… i like 1-ways or 2-ways with low (150-350 Hz) XOs.
dave
I beg to differ.
All that tells you is that YOU cannot hear any differences in that test, it says nothing about any differences.
dave
The interesting part is the Identification blind test (prior to the very subjective -but also interesting- Appreciation blind test).
The identification blind test will be conducted in a way so testees will have to identify the drivers (from a choice of 4). First, there will be a ''presentation'' of all drivers with few music excerpts, so testees will actually be exposed to the differences at the very beginning:
''This is excerpt #01 with driver A... Now with driver B... '' and so on.
After that, a random driver will be chosen and the testee will have to identify which one of the 4 it is, starting with the music excerpts already heard. Then, if successfully identified, we will move to the next step: music excerts not yet heard (so theoratically more difficult).
THAT might be the most interesting part.
For starters; is people be able to recognize the drivers from each other ? Will some stand out more than others ?
Will we see some hesitation or will it be a walk-in-the-park kind of identification ?
Is the audiophiles and non-audiophiles will have the same results ?
etc.. etc..
I can tell you, if you don't know already, that 2 different drivers EQed, flatten and SPL matched ...do not sound the same most of the time. Even on-axis.
Is some drivers will be easier to recognize than others ? Probably.
The best way to know that is to make the test.
I don't want to start a debate, but all i can say is: the overall gain of using a DSP (steep slopes electronic xover + EQ) is much greater than anything you can or think you can lose by not using that tool.
I find the use of passive crossovers prehistoric. When i first played with a DEQX i almost fainted... Like if i was a car racing enthusiast for years driving Honda Civics, then trying for the first time a Formula 1...
It's not difficult to come back to passive after that, it's impossible.