It certainly was the case during my formative years in this hobby (late 60-70s) that the loudness compensation attempted to resolve this hearing sensitivity issue.
One of the more innovative that encountered was by Yamaha that incorporated dual controls. You set the "volume" to maximum anticipated listening level with the "variable loudness" control at full, and then dialed back the second control for quieter levels. This was much more intuitive than it sounds, and was certainly more refined in the degree of compensation compared to that other typical mainstream products on the shelf ( Marantz, Sony, Sansui, Pioneer, etc). Particularly beneficial with higher efficiency ported speakers such as the JBL, Marantz, large Sansuis, etc, which may have sounded fine played at "realistic concert levels" in large showrooms shared with dozens of other systems, but could get very boomy very quickly at lower volume levels in customer's real rooms at home.
It's been a while (15+yrs) since I actually used the tone or loudness controls on any piece of gear I've owned that actually had them (mostly "surround" receivers), so I can't speak to what is incorporated into today's products.
relying on "acoustic memory" is certainly tricky, but we probably do it a lot more than we acknowledge
On the general subject of listening levels, I'm not particularly interested in debating the issue of ideal levels at which to judge any system performance parameter ( I suspect that conversation could run hundreds of posts). I would like to note that my habits have certainly changed over the last 40 yrs, and despite age related hearing loss and raging tinnitus, am now quite happy in the 75-85 dB (average) range. No doubt that is a major factor in my satisfaction with small full range systems and moderately low amplifier power levels.
haha the world would be a boring place without opinions! on this side of the pond, and in my experience at least, the 'Audiophile' thinking was against such EQ, including Bass and treble Pots....maybe im stuck in my ways but i still agree with that philosophy.
yes i still have a receiver with the function. its not as bad as most, since the eq is graduated until the amp switches from class A to AB, after which the control is defeated.
tone controls are from a period with poorly designed speakers
thats what it is to me
I remember once I had to choose between two cheaper head phones
I picked the one on which I could detect the blurring when I switched in a larger parametric EQ
maybe new technology is better
I know nothing about that
one time I heard significant improvement when removing an input selector switch, making it a one signal source only
its just not very practical in daily use
is it "audiophile" ?
well, to me it has nothing to do with that
its just what I prefer to live with
or without, to be precise
hey, Im from the time when a loudness bottom was a new thing, and spectacular
all my friends loved it
anyone else but me
its funny, but the most preferred speakers in town were quaterwaves with 8" fullrange
thats what it is to me
I remember once I had to choose between two cheaper head phones
I picked the one on which I could detect the blurring when I switched in a larger parametric EQ
maybe new technology is better
I know nothing about that
one time I heard significant improvement when removing an input selector switch, making it a one signal source only
its just not very practical in daily use
is it "audiophile" ?
well, to me it has nothing to do with that
its just what I prefer to live with
or without, to be precise
hey, Im from the time when a loudness bottom was a new thing, and spectacular
all my friends loved it
anyone else but me
its funny, but the most preferred speakers in town were quaterwaves with 8" fullrange
The amusement with which I personally view the extremist fringe of audiophilia results from a combination of working in the trade for a few years, (even though it's been " a while", human nature hasn't changed, just the number of digits preceding the decimal point), being willingly codependent with my local "pusher" for several decades, and thanks to the internet, reading sites like 6moons, etc. ( I mean, for example - hand made, directional, gold plated, cryotreated, audiophile power fuses @ $40 a piece, or "pebbles"? - give me a break)
Too deny that some (all?) of us get carried away with the hobby or wrapped up in our self-importance is, well human nature too - I've been much more at ease since accepting that.
Too deny that some (all?) of us get carried away with the hobby or wrapped up in our self-importance is, well human nature too - I've been much more at ease since accepting that.
yes sir
but I know it aint that easy
I build my own speakers, in my listening room
and they stay there, in the same place
I started doing that out of frustration
my hunting for better sound is over
now its just fun, and a hobby
I have a pair of old Jensen bass reflex speakers. They have full range 12 inch drivers, and BOY are they efficient. I don't know the efficiency number, but it must be high! I'm running a tube amp now, but I used to run them with a 10W chip amp. I could raise the roof with volume, and the amp's heat sink wouldn't even get warm. (These babies are also very dynamic. I suspect Dynamics and Efficiency go together, is this true?) I'm not a speaker expert by any means, but for efficiency I would recommend:
Large driver & Large Bass Reflex cab
Does full range have a leg up in efficiency? How much attenuation does a crossover have?
Bobby Dipole
Large driver & Large Bass Reflex cab
Does full range have a leg up in efficiency? How much attenuation does a crossover have?
Bobby Dipole
Attachments
yes sir
but I know it aint that easy
I build my own speakers, in my listening room
and they stay there, in the same place
I started doing that out of frustration
my hunting for better sound is over
now its just fun, and a hobby
OK, perhaps a little snarky.
Mine aren't and I have preset 3,6, and12 dB loudness curves in the DSP chain. I do not use any passive EQ, so I have presets for each of my speakers. The base EQ is for ~75dB at the listening position.
And I'll allow you that a well damped room does wonders. Unfortunately SWMBO has dictated the space I can use and it is definitely not ideal.
Bob
In my opinion, the best way for loudspeaker efficiency is the most possible adaption at the resistance from the air.
At the Loudspeaker adaptation website, the problem is described very simple.
H.
At the Loudspeaker adaptation website, the problem is described very simple.
H.
Bob, I was going to ask him to share his secret
tinitus: care to enlighten us
ahh, I guess I will have to say it....3 way....and crossovers
with fullrange you have to stay with what they do well, and stay away from what they cant do
and on subject EQ, its probably a good way to take it to the next level
I would use it too
and yeah, usually worked better with tube amps
if rock music is your main music, use a fullrange with good Xmax and relatively heavy diaphragm, and a super tweeter
a FAST design could be the next option
passive, and classic 300-500hz xo point
now Im in trouble
Perhaps a more important question on speaker efficiency is ....
Using year 2010 speaker technology, is there an efficiency range that produces the best sound quality with adequate dynamics and good living room placement?
The speakers I favor are between 94 to 98 db/watt efficiency. This range seems to offer the best combination of wide bandwidth, flat SPL/frequency, low phase spread, acceptable box size, and easy crossover design.
PERSONALLY, I would not own the 105 db/watt Klipschorns, but really enjoy the sound of 98db/watt JBL DD6600 and 93db/watt JBL K2 S9900.
I own a couple Tang Band W8-1808 8" full range speakers with 94db/watt efficiency in an MLTL and like the sound and simple equalization. Some of the higher efficiency 8" full range have response curves that seem beyond my talent to equalize, or require complex horns.
Is there an efficiency range that produces the best sound quality?
Using year 2010 speaker technology, is there an efficiency range that produces the best sound quality with adequate dynamics and good living room placement?
The speakers I favor are between 94 to 98 db/watt efficiency. This range seems to offer the best combination of wide bandwidth, flat SPL/frequency, low phase spread, acceptable box size, and easy crossover design.
PERSONALLY, I would not own the 105 db/watt Klipschorns, but really enjoy the sound of 98db/watt JBL DD6600 and 93db/watt JBL K2 S9900.
I own a couple Tang Band W8-1808 8" full range speakers with 94db/watt efficiency in an MLTL and like the sound and simple equalization. Some of the higher efficiency 8" full range have response curves that seem beyond my talent to equalize, or require complex horns.
Is there an efficiency range that produces the best sound quality?
Attachments
sorry couldn't resist
OK kids, pull up a chair and grab some popcorn, the movie's about to get interesting...
all kidding aside, the JBL6600 are a gorgeous piece of industrial art - I'd certainly love to hear a pair
Last edited:
Excepting bass, I've owned up to ~112 dB/4ft eff. (freaking huge by most folk's standards) and in some ways wanted more, but my (merely huge) current ~104 dB is already too high for its signal chain's noise floor for best total SQ, so this to me is the limiting factor for 'best' eff..
If we accept cinema reference for peak/avg. and 8 W at vanishingly low distortion, then in an average room, ~96 dB/m should suffice. Some symphonic CDs have up +30 dB (clipped) transients though, so to keep from clipping the amp we need ~106 dB/m eff.. This is moot though if the signal chain and speaker's HF isn't good out to 25-30 kHz to cover its leading edge, so when talking 'best', this ideally needs to be part of the equation.
GM
If we accept cinema reference for peak/avg. and 8 W at vanishingly low distortion, then in an average room, ~96 dB/m should suffice. Some symphonic CDs have up +30 dB (clipped) transients though, so to keep from clipping the amp we need ~106 dB/m eff.. This is moot though if the signal chain and speaker's HF isn't good out to 25-30 kHz to cover its leading edge, so when talking 'best', this ideally needs to be part of the equation.
GM
You are right, of course, linesource. And for the average person, I'd bet 96dB would be fine as a max, maybe even too much. Especially considering noise floor and for those like me who like vinyl. It's just my likely <0.5W amp won't do much with that except in the very near field (hmmm, I suppose that would make me below average
).So just an update, I've been doing lots of reading based on threads and articles suggested here. At the moment I'm leaning toward some trials with line source and waveguides using v cheap drivers, then using that as a springboard to deciding between them. But first to finish design work on the amp itself...
>>> They have full range 12 inch drivers, and BOY are they efficient.
>>> JBL DD6600...
>>> and in some ways wanted more...
Yes, more, more, MORE!
I've been listening to 12" wide range drivers lately and love them warts and all because they present music with a bigger, more lifelike sound than any of the smaller drivers i've been using. The smaller drivers do some things better but overall, i really enjoy larger drivers... and yes, i want more!
I have those TB 1808 and think they are great. Next to the Eminence 12lta you can barely hear them. Sure the TBs are sweeter sounding and portray some of the more delicate parts of the performance but they don't produce as realistic a performance as the larger drivers. I have even smaller Fostex 127e, 168s, 165k and several other nice full range drivers... but they seem to sound like their size suggests... smaller drivers sound smaller to me. Larger drivers excite the air. Music FEELS more real. The room bristles with excitement. When Shelby Lynne's voice filled my room last night i was in heaven. After a long day of shoveling it was a great way to unwind. Phantom of the Opera rumbled, startled and felt more real in my listening than it ever has... I bet that Jensen 12" sounds great. If you have the room, go with bigger drivers!
That JBL is gorgeous!
>>> JBL DD6600...
>>> and in some ways wanted more...
Yes, more, more, MORE!
I've been listening to 12" wide range drivers lately and love them warts and all because they present music with a bigger, more lifelike sound than any of the smaller drivers i've been using. The smaller drivers do some things better but overall, i really enjoy larger drivers... and yes, i want more!
I have those TB 1808 and think they are great. Next to the Eminence 12lta you can barely hear them. Sure the TBs are sweeter sounding and portray some of the more delicate parts of the performance but they don't produce as realistic a performance as the larger drivers. I have even smaller Fostex 127e, 168s, 165k and several other nice full range drivers... but they seem to sound like their size suggests... smaller drivers sound smaller to me. Larger drivers excite the air. Music FEELS more real. The room bristles with excitement. When Shelby Lynne's voice filled my room last night i was in heaven. After a long day of shoveling it was a great way to unwind. Phantom of the Opera rumbled, startled and felt more real in my listening than it ever has... I bet that Jensen 12" sounds great. If you have the room, go with bigger drivers!
That JBL is gorgeous!
Dual mid '50s Altec 515B woofers in ~20 ft^3 nominally corner loaded cabs that nowadays would be considered a ML-TQWT tuned to ~16 Hz. Altec 511/802-8D compression horns, Altec 500 Hz XO. Beyond CD horn EQ to flatten it out to ~20 kHz and acoustically aligning the horn to the woofers, it's not optimized nor have any of the tweaks I recommend since it's a 'make-do' system for now.
GM
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.