The 10F is a really good driver… not as good as the FF85wKeN, not full range anyway.
As to the last statement that is pure supposition on your part as you don't yet grook the reality. Some devices just have lower noise floors. A ringing impulse response will not give you better 3D image/soundstage -- a major characteristic of a device with high DDR. Note that the device with the least DDR will set the limit for the entire system.
dave
Yup. I got your point after I wrote that first sentence.
The underlined sounds dubious to me.
So you think that the difference between 10F and TG9 because they have slight FR differences? Hard to imagine how have the manufacturer designed the drivers and decided on the prices.
Or you think that there could be other factor other than the FR, which means you basically agree with Planet10 on the issue.
Originally Posted by JonBocani View Post
The thing is: fullranges* are often considered as the best midrange,
Let me rephrase that.
Some of the highest quality fullranges are often considered as the best midrange.
... that means i would not hesitate a second throwing a Lowther, a Voxativ, a Seas exotic, a Supravox or any other high-end FR in a 3 or 4-way speaker recipe... as the midrange or mid-hi.
You can disagree to that, but then again: did you ever heard such recipe ?
The thing is: fullranges* are often considered as the best midrange,
Let me rephrase that.
Some of the highest quality fullranges are often considered as the best midrange.
... that means i would not hesitate a second throwing a Lowther, a Voxativ, a Seas exotic, a Supravox or any other high-end FR in a 3 or 4-way speaker recipe... as the midrange or mid-hi.
You can disagree to that, but then again: did you ever heard such recipe ?
I have little experience with those drivers, but how about this logic:
How hard it is to design a driver that work optimally for small midrange bandwidth, compared to a driver that work optimally for midrange bandwidth PLUS good LF extension PLUS good HF extension?
It doesnt really work that way.
Many of the best drivers are not restrained to a small bandwith.
The mighty RAAL 140-15D tweeter is excellent from as low as 1.8khz and is useable below that with steep xover slope. (which means it can cover 4 octaves and +)
Subwoofers like Visaton TIW250XS and JL audio 10w6v3 are capable of going as high as 250-300hz with better results than many so called ''midbass''...
About FR drivers; well, by the way they are built, they simply are much more agile, therefore they deliver more details, resolution, micro/macro-dynamics. They can reach higher frequencies but that also implies they have lighter moving mass, and this greatly affects the overall feels in the midrange (and even low-mid range in some cases).
That is much like comparing a 4,300lbs muscle car with a 2,500lbs race-oriented sport car: they might end up doing same lap times or 0-60mph, but the feeling behind the wheel can be extremely different.
Last edited:
1st Method:
2nd Method:
Both methods are equally important (especially at the beginning), where 1st method is applicable only if you have good ears...
A measurement result has little meaning if we cannot correlate it with how the sound will be perceived. And yet, correlating them is not simple issue, for example, which one is better (-50dB 2nd HD plus -70dB 3rd HD), or (-60dB of 2nd plus -60dB 3rd).
Another example, how about relative amplitude between the harmonics? Like in amp, some prefer monotonically decreasing pattern? So, here ears will tell you exactly what you will like or not.
By scanning the drivers with various frequency (1st method) you may find a typical sound that you may not be able to see/understand from measurement.
2nd Method:
Both methods are equally important (especially at the beginning), where 1st method is applicable only if you have good ears...
A measurement result has little meaning if we cannot correlate it with how the sound will be perceived. And yet, correlating them is not simple issue, for example, which one is better (-50dB 2nd HD plus -70dB 3rd HD), or (-60dB of 2nd plus -60dB 3rd).
Another example, how about relative amplitude between the harmonics? Like in amp, some prefer monotonically decreasing pattern? So, here ears will tell you exactly what you will like or not.
By scanning the drivers with various frequency (1st method) you may find a typical sound that you may not be able to see/understand from measurement.
I'm using what i consider reliable testing equipement, including a pair of M50 earthworks calibrated mics, and i NEVER measured speakers, in-room, at listening position that are anything close to what we might consider ''perfectly flat''. And that is with 1/3 octave.... Don't even think 1/6, 1/12 or 1/24...
''ultra-flat'' FR can be obtained with components such as DEQX but then again the room acoustics will always corrupt the final result delivered to your ears/brains.
That being said, put 2 different ''ultra-flatten'' drivers side-to-side and chances are high that you *will* notice differences. Obvious or subtle.
You just can't turn a 20 bucks driver into a racing machine like the Voxativ or the ATC just by EQing it flat... That would be too easy, isn't it ?
Last edited:
When i said trial and errors on a DSP, it implies doing so using tools. Such as calibrated mic, pink noise and RTA.
Doing that all by ears ? God, no!
You DO listen to the adjustements, with music obviously, but the tools are mandatory.
The hundreds of hours is intented to know better the different xover points and slopes, EQ adjustements, driver's comparisons, etc... At some point you know the drivers by heart: their weakness and the their strenghts.
Why not?
You can as well measure all the drivers and forget the blind test hehe.Most drivers have terrible HD at the ends of their usable bandwidth.
From what I have heard, speakers, or FR drivers, they sound good only when they reproduce a wide band frequency. Once you remove the LF and HF components, usually the true midrange quality is revealed! Most of the time they have high HD when we compared to a dedicated midrange.
So it would make sense to, later, compare the winner of this wideband test with a dedicated small bandwidth midrange in a narrower band test (such as 400Hz-3kHz).
Ok, but how ?
identification test or appreciation test ?
if it's appreciation, i don't how if it will be possible to listen such narrow bandwith without asking for aspirins and a double whisky.
I think its way better to chose music excerpts that peaks in the 800-2.5khz while keeping the 400-7khz xover, than reducing the xover bandwith.
Educated-guess here. I might be wrong, but i doubt it.
All the experimentations i did concludes to the opposite. I couldnt really stand the FR's hi and low ends but the mid section is the yummiest of the slices.
Then again i mostly made experimentations on very high end FR drivers, except Visaton B200 which was good but only with some severe DSP corrections.
People may pick the driver because of it's quality at around 400Hz and/or 7kHz. If the bandwidth is narrowed, people is forced to pick based on its performance regarding the peak you are trying to introduce.
I guess detailed HD measurement is sufficient, but identification/appreciation test might be required to prove its audibility (only one listener is required to be successful).
Maximum SPL as it will be used in real speaker.
Excellent is not the word I would use for THD measurements like this:
www.audioexcite.com Blog Archive RAAL 140-15D Ribbon Tweeter Measurements!
(You need to scroll down a bit)
'Average' and 'don't use below 4k' are the words I would use.
Distortion measurement summary:
Low second order harmonics, but third order harmonics increases with higher SPL. Still for a ribbon, the RAAL 140-15D tweeter performs very well.
To have some distortion safe margin even at higher SPL:s a cross-over of 3kHz or higher is recommended. If the need for SPL is more modest, a cross-over at 2-2.5kHz could work depending on how steep the filter is.
It’s interesting to see is that the distortion is even lower when the “foam deflection pads” are used.
1. Not an issue in the article you mentionned.
2. Far from being an issue to my ears. For years, now.
The article doesn't say that, I am saying that when looking at the distortion graphs. £30-50 domes do better than that.
Not a chance in hell I'd want to find out if it would be an issue for me at given what the RAAL costs. For that kind of money it is hard to think beyond the venerable Beyma TPL150.
Yes i heard of that one. I surely need to test/compare it in a near future...
about the RAAL.. well, graphs sure don't tell everything.
Money spent on a tweeter seem to be a decision factor for you, while i'm not stopped by that; i aim for the best and the 140-15D is the best i ever heard in my life (along with his brother the not-available-to-public 70-20) followed by the Scanspeak R2904 from the Revelator series (haven't listened for enough time the Dynaudio Esotar T330D, but should worth a try as well).
Last edited:
I think your idea has some potential.
So we first run a test of ''widebands'' (including compression drivers) and maybe not the ATC...
Then we run another test with much limited bandwith to see if identification is possible (to begin with) between the winner(s) among the widebands versus what is considered to be references in the classic-midrange-bandwith...
How does that sound ? no pun intended
Only if the measured data is not in keeping with the price charged.
If some tweeter doesn't measure considerably better than a simple dome at 1/10th of the cost it is not going to be considered.