2way vs 3way, same sound?

[Barleywater]

Originally Posted by dewardh

Andrew . . . I'm not quite following where you're going here. We probably all agree that lower distortion is generally "better", that some kinds of distortion sound worse than others, and that there are a lot of bad speakers and undiscriminating listneners out there. Many of us may disagree with the implication that dave doesn't do testing or is unduely "gullible" in his listening (and might question the unnecessary incivility of the implied insult).

It's more peculiar in light of the context . . . you seem to be suggesting that there's something inherently wrong with using small cone drivers over what appears to be their intended range (as opposed to . . . what?) without offering up actual comparative evidence to support the rejection. Do they actually have notably higher distortion (of the "bad" kinds)? Are there perhaps other tradeoffs (and possible advantages) that weigh on the choice? And what are we to say to not-notably-gullible experienced (and sometimes trained) ears who simply say Speaker A sounds "more musical" or "more listenable" or "more true to the music" than Speaker B? Are the preformers on stage stupid and the engineer in the control room not? Or are we maybe still measuring the wrong things, or wrongly weighting the measurements that we've got . . .

It is gullibility of human perception as a whole, hearing in this context, and no implied insult toward Dave. My apologies if insult has occurred.

I site Klippel in this instance as one of many including myself that have performed multi tone testing, listening with both ears and microphone.

All distortion is bad in reproduction. IMD is really bad, and operating a driver at wavelengths orders of magnitudes greater than driver's diameter is a great way to promote this.

I can provide plenty of pictures, references and details, but experiencing these evils isolated first hand is only effective way to learn what they sound like, and leads to better identification of them in program material.

Dave's apparent target with these speakers is phase coherence/lack of vertical lobing, and compromises with reduced linearity and power handling. Real performance metrics are only way to communicate this. I can't measure Dave's speaker performance, and I can't hear them, but real practiced knowledge leads to inference that as described, they have high levels of IMD from below crossover point to about 2kHz.

Dave is welcome to flesh this out with real measurements.

Regards,

Andrew



Regards,

Andrew

[dewardh]

Originally Posted by Barleywater

IMD is really bad, and operating a driver at wavelengths orders of magnitudes greater than driver's diameter is a great way to promote this.

I certainly agree that IMD is "really bad" (if there's enough to hear it), but . . . common nominal 3"-4" drivers have cones from 2.5" to 3" diameter, so they are less than an order of magnitude smaller than wavelength down to 500Hz. or below, and excursion will be a modest 1-1.5mm for 105dB . . . is that OK by you ? ? ? I'm just not seeing the IMD contribution as being greater than, or worse than, the cone breakup induced distortion and the radiation pattern problems of the larger drivers commonly used up to and above that frequency . . .

[planet10]

Originally Posted by Barleywater

Yes, truth is when microphone picks up input signal

The truth is that a mictophone is a tool. A very useful tool. It does not, though, "perceive" anything like the ear/brain. I have seen far too many people measure, look at the output and then "hear" what they saw.

Measurement microphone repeatedly reveals gullibility of untrained listener.

In some respects yes. But a trained listener perceives things a mic has no hope of catching.

and compression driver systems with distortion >6% covering the rest.

Driver manufactures enjoy working with reduced engineering and build out costs that gullible minds accept. Builders of consumer sound gladly follow suite, and those looking to mine deep pocket status seeking audiophiles have lots of spin to work with.

This is unfortunately true, and the reason i build my own... little commercial stuff gives me the set of compromises that i prefer to live with.

Clearly not enough real measurements are done by speaker builders in my opinion.

And far too many amatuers (and even pros) do not understand what those measurements are telling them. Measurements are a tool to help the designer develop a design that does a better job communicating with the listener. They are an aid, not a proof. Our measurements are still too primitive and without the required established coorelation with human perception.

Some truly don't care at all about the fidelity of a playback system.

Not a set of listeners that i belong too.

You may read, but clearly do not work practical exercises to gain real experience of inverse relationship of distortion and fidelity.

Or i have enuff practical experience to know the limitations of those "measurement" excercises.

Measurement microphones repeatedly show the gullibility of the human mind.

All too true. And in ways you haven't imagined... like the guy who looks at the graphs and hears what he sees and not what he hears (and is actually there)

A real gem of knowledge is easily gained: Take a driver with less than 1% 2nd harmonic listen to single tone in voice range, and then add in 5% 2nd harmonic of fundamental.

I am well familiar with that. And one should be aware that careful selection of partnering amplifier can cancel much of that second order distortion.

Test scenarios are very real. Real drivers, real signals, real results.

Real drivers, artifical signals, results that have to be interpreted and have little established correlation yet to what the ear/brain perceives.

dave

[planet10]

Originally Posted by Barleywater

I
...and operating a driver at wavelengths orders of magnitudes greater than driver's diameter is a great way to promote this

The driver i am using has the HF characteristics of a 3/4" dome.

Dave is welcome to flesh this out with real measurements.

Dave will keep his measurements to himself, they are tools for my use, not for other's misinterpretation. Evaluation of a speakers should happrn in the room, with the kit, and by the ears it will be used with

Just as i have, till now, declined to comment on the measurements that Andrew has posted of his speaker, which has me wishing to hear if it has the qualities i fear it has from my interpretation (or misintrepetation) of the pictures/graphs.

dave

[dewardh]

Originally Posted by planet10

Real drivers, artifical signals, results that have to be interpreted

Says it all. Simply listening to the pass off from Oboe to Clarinet in the third movement of the Gran Partita tells me more about a speaker's midrange behavior than all the charts and distortion sweeps. The measurements certainly help in figuring out what's happening when it's "wrong", but they're still not enough to tell me it's going to be "right".

[murphythecat8]

Originally Posted by planet10

What makes you say that? I learn large amounts from what is written. I avidly seek out anything i can read looking for gems that can enhance my understanding & methodology.

I have an audio library that likely rivals most out there. Hence the request for something toread on the correlation between IMD and hearing perception.

dave

im curious, how many 2 way and 3 way have you ever build?

[Helmuth]

A 3way is a 2way with subwoofer.
If you do it right you shout end up with better sub-bas and cleaner midrange with the 3 way. Because the mid-driver has to work less hard, and the woofer can be the right size.

cross it low for less interference problems and constant directivity.

[tinitus]

I would say much of it depends on how loud you play

best mid is a 4-5" type
crossing low, it might be better to use a 6"
if you play loud, I would think twice about crossing the mid bery low

that said, a small 2way with a 5" can at times sound surpricingly good
I have long wanted to try a 2.5way with 5" woofers
but it easily gets expencives
maybe some day when I get tired of big speaker
subwoofer ? yeah, that too, but also expencive
and my next speakers are probably bigger than any I have ever had

[planet10]

Originally Posted by murphythecat8

im curious, how many 2 way and 3 way have you ever build?

Lots & lots.

dave

[planet10]

Originally Posted by Helmuth

A 3way is a 2way with subwoofer.

THis is something that has becoming much clearer with the advent of acceptance od the subwoofer as a separate entity.

Toole & Geddes have really rammed that home.

dave