Hi ScottG
Hold up a minute, this forums a place where everyone gets their chance to comment and offer opinion. Around one month before John got going professionally, he short reviewed my first Gen Alpair 6. I had no problem with this because I understood he was impartial, not commercially connected to speakers. But this was not the case, deals were being done while reviews carried on. This ain't the right way to do things!
For many DIYer's, its a choice between building full range or multi-way projects. John clearly prefers multi-way so no full-range maker's going to get a fair shake under these conditions.
John (and some DIY guys) often use a Behringer EMC 8000 mic. Its cheap (around 50 dollars) but its not accurate to the level needed to reliably measure wide bandwidth (graph shows grey areas of pick-up range variation + 5dB uplift). Given this mic's likely performance limitations, And the use of a non-anechoic environment, its by no means certain that the 10F's high response was accurately measured.
Using something like an M52 mic in an anechoic environment (graph illustrates 10Hz to 40-kHz @ +/-1dB flat response) is expected to deliver a more reliable result. Such mics are in anechoic use in most of the industry. I use this mic and an Earthworks M50 in a walk-in anechoic chamber with a suspended wire floor. It' the only way to reliably isolate the driver and get an accurate test. I'd encourage all DIY testers to do what they can to upgrade mics and gear when money permits; And to fully pad out a room (wife/partner and bank manager permitting).
Scan-Speak have been in the business a long time and are well respected. They will have good professional industry standard test facilities. Their graph shows the 10F driver peaking at 15-kHz @ 92dB, falling off to 82dB @ 18-kHz, a -10dB fall in 3-kHz. The useable HF range @ -6dB is likely to be around 16-17-kHz, on axis. That's an excellent frequency output for a driver using a fibreglass cone, all credit to Scan-Speak.
Where DIYer's choose to pass judgement of what makes a driver "full range" is open to personal assessment. I only wish there was greater agreement amongst all the players in the industry on driver classification, measurement and presentation of data.
Mark.
Hold up a minute, this forums a place where everyone gets their chance to comment and offer opinion. Around one month before John got going professionally, he short reviewed my first Gen Alpair 6. I had no problem with this because I understood he was impartial, not commercially connected to speakers. But this was not the case, deals were being done while reviews carried on. This ain't the right way to do things!
For many DIYer's, its a choice between building full range or multi-way projects. John clearly prefers multi-way so no full-range maker's going to get a fair shake under these conditions.
John (and some DIY guys) often use a Behringer EMC 8000 mic. Its cheap (around 50 dollars) but its not accurate to the level needed to reliably measure wide bandwidth (graph shows grey areas of pick-up range variation + 5dB uplift). Given this mic's likely performance limitations, And the use of a non-anechoic environment, its by no means certain that the 10F's high response was accurately measured.
Using something like an M52 mic in an anechoic environment (graph illustrates 10Hz to 40-kHz @ +/-1dB flat response) is expected to deliver a more reliable result. Such mics are in anechoic use in most of the industry. I use this mic and an Earthworks M50 in a walk-in anechoic chamber with a suspended wire floor. It' the only way to reliably isolate the driver and get an accurate test. I'd encourage all DIY testers to do what they can to upgrade mics and gear when money permits; And to fully pad out a room (wife/partner and bank manager permitting).
Scan-Speak have been in the business a long time and are well respected. They will have good professional industry standard test facilities. Their graph shows the 10F driver peaking at 15-kHz @ 92dB, falling off to 82dB @ 18-kHz, a -10dB fall in 3-kHz. The useable HF range @ -6dB is likely to be around 16-17-kHz, on axis. That's an excellent frequency output for a driver using a fibreglass cone, all credit to Scan-Speak.
Where DIYer's choose to pass judgement of what makes a driver "full range" is open to personal assessment. I only wish there was greater agreement amongst all the players in the industry on driver classification, measurement and presentation of data.
Mark.
Attachments
Last edited:
..and many of those drivers are measured in the same way on Zaph's site.
And they aren't nearly as good.
As 'good' as what? I assume by whatever criteria you happen to favour, but the drivers you refer to are a disparate bunch; each has its own remit / priorities and they are therefore not directly comparable to each other.
Thank you for telling me that, I would never have known otherwise.
To illustrate the point that you need to compare like units with like units, using the same methodology and equipment. For example, comparing the measurements John takes of a driver to those for another unit, taken by someone else, under different conditions, and with different equipment, is pretty much meaningless. Especially if the drive units under question were not designed for the same thing, or with the same priorities in mind.
Last edited:
well make your own picture:
ScanSpeak measurements:
Zaph's measurements:
to my eyes, that is pretty damn close and discrepancies could well be production method induced variations
ScanSpeak measurements:
An externally hosted image should be here but it was not working when we last tested it.
Zaph's measurements:
to my eyes, that is pretty damn close and discrepancies could well be production method induced variations
I would belive someone like Zaph would calibrate his Behringer mic before making any measurements.
Yep, except in both mine and Zaphs measurements, the driver extends to 20 khz. And it sounds that way too
Hi ScottG
Hold up a minute, this forums a place where everyone gets their chance to comment and offer opinion. Around one month before John got going professionally, he short reviewed my first Gen Alpair 6. I had no problem with this because I understood he was impartial, not commercially connected to speakers. But this was not the case, deals were being done while reviews carried on. This ain't the right way to do things!
Where DIYer's choose to pass judgement of what makes a driver "full range" is open to personal assessment. I only wish there was greater agreement amongst all the players in the industry on driver classification, measurement and presentation of data.
Mark.
While i can understandd your concerns over measuring procedures, logic would serve to suggest that the measuring technics employing higher resolution equipment would be the 'least' forgiving of FR anomolies saving the theory of miscalibration offsets of variing degrees. Could some of the peaks of the Alpair's testing be due to room reflections in a non anechoic chamber? Sure. Likely?.......i don't think so but in any case we as listeners don't listen in an anechoic space either so if these measurements indicate the potention of energy storage, i prefer John's platform from my standpoint and i think that's the point of the type of testing he does.
As to your comments in regards to his business ethics, i've got to tell you that i find them to be quite distastefull and completely unfounded. John has always held himself to the highest of standard and has abstained completely from marketing his driver which given it's specifications was clearly not intended to compete with your offerings. While you may not value my opinion as a DIY speaker builder, you should value it as an educated consumer. Thanx for the time
As 'good' as what? I assume by whatever criteria you happen to favour, but the drivers you refer to are a disparate bunch; each has its own remit / priorities and they are therefore not directly comparable to each other.
Thank you for telling me that, I would never have known otherwise.
To illustrate the point that you need to compare like units with like units, using the same methodology and equipment. For example, comparing the measurements John takes of a driver to those for another unit, taken by someone else, under different conditions, and with different equipment, is pretty much meaningless. Especially if the drive units under question were not designed for the same thing, or with the same priorities in mind.
I specifically referenced it's UPPER FREQ. PERFORMANCE.
You chose to ignore that.
You have just stated that you are well aware that the graph you posted from Mark has no bearing on this, and isn't in the "near field" proper, but rather in the *extreme* near-field - a measurement for those freq.s where absolutely no one would listen to.
Honestly, I now think you were purposefully trying to run "damage control" for other designs/manufacturers by "muddying" the issue.
What about it? Your remark, IIRC, was that it 'blows away' xyz, which doesn't exactly give much sense of the specific criteria you are applying in this assessment. I 'chose to ignore' nothing.
Your point is? I was merely using it in a sardonic fashion to illustrate the fact that when comparing measurements between drivers (preferably drivers designed for the same purpose, otherwise it's a meaningless exercise at best), said measurements have to be of an identical type, taken using identical equipment. I thought suggesting the basic scientific methodology of controlling variables might be greeted with approval, given that we've had some 'comparisons' between different drivers, designed with different criteria, for different purposes, and measured in different ways in the course of the thread, but evidently nobody picked up on it. Ah well. My Anglo-Saxon sense of humour I fear.
If you say so.
Last edited:
Just to be clear, my quoted comment was specifically aimed at HF. And the FF85 as a specific driver it doesn't blow away -- it has response well past 20k. It is like a really good tweeter that can be crossed at ~300 Hz.
I will have to get a set of these ScanSpeak to see how they really do. Price wise it is comparable to my treated FF85 or a stock set of Alpair 7 so some direct comparisons are called for.
dave
__________________________________________
"In all things audio, the ear is the final arbiter."
Harry Olson
Yeah, "Blows away" is not entirely specific, and overstated generally.
So greater specificity:
1. It has a reasonably extended response on-axis up to 20 kHz. Though several drivers can claim this.
2. It has exceptional off-axis performance (as I mentioned to mayhem). "Exceptional" - meaning it has comparatively low directivity even at high freq.s and that the response off-axis is quite linear (i.e. "smooth"). In fact it's so good that it's comparable to *good* 28 mm (and larger) tweeters. In this respect it *far* exceeds other designs that can be reasonably operated below 500 Hz (that I've seen).
3. It has a very linear freq. response on an IEC baffle (with proper mounting).
4. It has a *very* linear decay (linear distortion) with almost no discernible problem resonances. Further, it has an *excellent* linear decay "structure" that for most of it's high freq.s results in 10-12db near instantaneous settling (i.e. the "Dark Red" portion on the CSD).
5. Harmonic Distortion is also lower in it's upper freq. response than most other extended range drivers. Only the relatively benign 2nd order distortion is not as good.
I've yet to see measurements on the Fostex FF85 beyond their own published graphs, but I'll happily bet that it doesn't even come close to most of these specific parameters. Extension near the average to 20k+ on axis? Sure. The rest of it..
Note that I'm not "down" on products from Fostex, Mark Audio, Hi Vi, etc.., rather that this driver measures exceptionally well. In fact it measures a fair bit better overall than Scan Speaks own *3* times more expensive Revelator 12M.
Um, no, You specifically ignored it's high freq. behavior under any reasonable testing condition.
As for the description "blows away".. hopefully my post to Dave makes this more clear.
I beg your pardon? Where did I 'specifically ignore' anything?
Believe it if it makes you happy. I've tried hard to be polite, but since you seem to be labouring under the delusion that I have to explain myself to you, as well as the fact that you have directly accused me of underhand dealings, I refuse to have anything more to do with you.
Believe it if it makes you happy. I've tried hard to be polite, but since you seem to be labouring under the delusion that I have to explain myself to you, as well as the fact that you have directly accused me of underhand dealings, I refuse to have anything more to do with you.
Hi ScottG
Hold up a minute, this forums a place where everyone gets their chance to comment and offer opinion.
Around one month before John got going professionally, he short reviewed my first Gen Alpair 6. I had no problem with this because I understood he was impartial, not commercially connected to speakers. But this was not the case, deals were being done while reviews carried on. This ain't the right way to do things!
For many DIYer's, its a choice between building full range or multi-way projects. John clearly prefers multi-way so no full-range maker's going to get a fair shake under these conditions.
John (and some DIY guys) often use a Behringer EMC 8000 mic. Its cheap (around 50 dollars) but its not accurate to the level needed to reliably measure wide bandwidth (graph shows grey areas of pick-up range variation + 5dB uplift). Given this mic's likely performance limitations, And the use of a non-anechoic environment, its by no means certain that the 10F's high response was accurately measured.
Mark.
..and you chose to use your comment(s) to attempt to discredit any information from Zaph's site.
I've nothing against you or your products.. how would you like it if I proclaimed to others: "..you can't trust anything on the MarkAudio site, all of it is highly suspect." Of course I'm not about to, because I think it's patently untrue.
From this recent post it seems as if you have a "beef" with Zaph, as if he did something "under-handed" to you. But I think your problem is bogus. Moreover the measurements aren't really a "review" at all. If your problem is with his comments or "stars".. OK, separate issue - but the point of this thread is on the OBJECTIVE performance of the 10F and it's relationship to the OBJECTIVE performance of other extended range drivers.
Finally Zaphs mic is CALIBRATED! ..and if you bothered to read that it was the Behringer unit mic, then it really shouldn't have been that difficult to discover that it was calibrated.
Zaph|Audio
Under the moderate power testing conditions that Zaph uses it's essentially perfect.
So which is it?
Answer your question, or have nothing more to do with me?
..and I'm hardly "laboring under any delusion". (..nice personal attack there.
)But I'll answer.
Your response:
You ignored any reasonably relevant measurement in support of your reply that my claim was "not necessarily" correct.
Further you attached a measurement that, while factual and expressing diversity in measurements, has nothing to do with the claim of " upper freq. response pretty much "blows away"..", and on cursory view appears to show that the driver specifically does NOT have a good measurable high freq. performance.
Again, had you actually *wanted* to show anything *RELEVANT*, you could have easily posted Mark's 1 meter test. OR like DemonCleaner - you could have simply posted Scan Speaks own measured data. BOTH are relevant, and all 3 are a bit dissimilar and would have easily AND RELEVANTLY expressed the view-point that testing can produce different results.
Now do you understand?
Here is an interesting little java applet that will help describe the limitations of the 10f in relation to excursion vs. spl.
Piston Excursion calculator
Note that the condition for the calculation is an "Infinite baffle" with no baffle step loss.
The 10F is a 2.5 inch diameter driver.
For instance 1 driver at 300 Hz and 100 db/1 meter (without baffle step loss, or losses/gains due to driver enclosure loading) has an operating xmax of 1.9642 mm's.
Of course it gets MUCH worse as you go lower in freq..
Bottom line - it's an extended range mid-treble driver for most applications where using only one driver per loudspeaker.
I could easily see this driver used in something like this:
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/boenicke2/sls.html
Though NOT with both driver's operated to their upper freq. limit, but rather an 8 ohm unit utilizing a 4 ohm unit in series with a low-pass filter designed for some baffle step compensation below 1 kHz. It would still need a high-pass, but again, that could be provided in an "active/passive" configuration.
Piston Excursion calculator
Note that the condition for the calculation is an "Infinite baffle" with no baffle step loss.
The 10F is a 2.5 inch diameter driver.
For instance 1 driver at 300 Hz and 100 db/1 meter (without baffle step loss, or losses/gains due to driver enclosure loading) has an operating xmax of 1.9642 mm's.
Of course it gets MUCH worse as you go lower in freq..
Bottom line - it's an extended range mid-treble driver for most applications where using only one driver per loudspeaker.
I could easily see this driver used in something like this:
http://www.6moons.com/audioreviews/boenicke2/sls.html
Though NOT with both driver's operated to their upper freq. limit, but rather an 8 ohm unit utilizing a 4 ohm unit in series with a low-pass filter designed for some baffle step compensation below 1 kHz. It would still need a high-pass, but again, that could be provided in an "active/passive" configuration.
Last edited:
It is interesting that you choose that analogy. When we were 1st playing with the FF85 there was worry about how much we'd have to sell a treated version. When we did hear it (as a mid-tweeter) we quickly realized that it was comparable to some of those "good" tweeters, and that the domes in many cases cost much more. Still, i've found a $160/pr 3" a hard sell. No one who owns a pair is complaining
dave
Hi Mayhem,
Thanks for your comments and I do value your opinions. As far as I know, I'm the only driver maker on this forum precisely because I do take on board DIYers opinions.
Your first sentence is right and explains why I'm advocating the use of better equipment and the use of anechoic or well-damped environments where possible. I'm rather surprised by the rest of your comments. The prime reason for the use of anechoic environments is that external influences do affect driver test outcomes. All DIY speaker builders deserve access to accurate and reliable data upon which they can make a judgement call.
Re you comments regarding John (Zaph). I'm very surprised that you've "glossed over" the reality of the situation. John's using his "Zaph" name to sell drivers and kits. He's not doing doing it for love, but for commercial gain. Zaph's commerce does compete with mine because DIYers make buying choice's between multi-way and full range drivers. I also produce a woofer and tweeter (Woofer No.6 - EL166 and Tweeter No.3 - ERT26). His commercial activity means he's no longer neutral, yet he continues to judge products that compete with his a driver and kits that bear his brand name, its a clear conflict of commercial interest.
I'm not quite sure what your inferring when using the term "educated consumer". Are you saying that only "educated" consumers follow John's work, that I'm not educated, or those consumers who may disagree with your position aren't educated?
Thanks,
Mark.
Not at all Mark.....as no offense intended as an 'educated' consumer. This whole debate smacks of a bit of dischord i guess. Upon closer examination it could be inferred that Zaph's driver testing and comments may shift DIYers away from certain drivers and towards others but given the reputation of the Alpairs here and on other DIY boards, i fear you have nothing to worry about. My builds have all been multi-ways and as such i find the 10F fits as a dedicated midrange or with some bottom end help for a small very nearfield monitor. I don't think I could listen to it by it's lonesome for too long. As others have posted, the 10F apparently is a fine driver, but an expensive option as well where the 'educated' consumer may find more value in a similiarly sized Alpair.....which win the 'cool looking' transducer award anyways.
But let's move on as the Mod's are getting a bity wary of all this. I guess i was just uncomfortable with the way you presented your case as John has always proven to be an invaluable asset and friend to the DIY community and in my eyes....above reproach. thanx for the chance to rebutt.
But let's move on as the Mod's are getting a bity wary of all this. I guess i was just uncomfortable with the way you presented your case as John has always proven to be an invaluable asset and friend to the DIY community and in my eyes....above reproach. thanx for the chance to rebutt.
It is interesting that you choose that analogy. When we were 1st playing with the FF85 there was worry about how much we'd have to sell a treated version. When we did hear it (as a mid-tweeter) we quickly realized that it was comparable to some of those "good" tweeters, and that the domes in many cases cost much more. Still, i've found a $160/pr 3" a hard sell. No one who owns a pair is complaining
dave
Parlay that into a full bandwidth design!
160 US a pair may be difficult to "swallow" as a "full-range" design component.. but an *actual* full-range design and "kit" with a minimalist crossover WITH minimum-phase behavior for less than 550 US shouldn't be much of a problem.
Better still if it's measurably equivalent to *any* good design (..and better than most). (..and I think that particular Scan driver can provide that, though I could be wrong about the fostex.)
I personally think there are a whole host of reasons for preferring a "mid-tweeter" (like the fostex or Scan). Just from a basic design viewpoint it makes a LOT more sense than the attempt at a full-range, or a full range + tweeter.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.