Who learn something new from the test, something they don't know before...
But even this new thing that we can learn from the test can be misleading, i.e. when we draw wrong conclusions... (so learning new things is not always useful, it can be a waste of time too)
Are you saying DIY speakers can be as good or better than these brands?
It's been done many times by the less wealthy but thrifty guys here more than a thousand times.
In real world out of these DIYAudio, not everyone can DIY their own speakers so they just have to go out and buy these exotic speakers.
You need to have the required skills, tools and time to study and build a good sounding DIY speakers. And it's not always a fruitful result at the end.
And we mostly provide our labor and time FREE which you never add to that final cost.
"King" in term of? When FR is not flat, at certain frequency you may have significant level of difference in SPL between 2 DUTs. This is very audible, but when we can hear the difference, it doesn't mean that there is a clear difference in quality...
Something that is louder tend to be perceived better, but this is misleading. When FR is not flat, especially when there is a big level jump in a short band (there is a deep dip/peak), and there is a critical musical content withing that frequency band, the pitch of the music can be negatively affected. But this requires good ears to detect by ears...
In general, for a conclusion, you can check driver test by XRK, where an Alpine driver having the wildest FR was preferred by many people!!
So, what is it we should look for??
That is true, that is why distortion measurement is more important. Most people cannot detect the small distortion difference, but it will affect them in the prolonged listening.
You didn't mention what active EQ you were using in this set up. You were trying to prove the original posters thesis incorrect right?
My experience tells me that frequency response plays a massive role. However, matching on-axis response can sound massively different depending on the power response of the speaker, we don't listen to speakers in an anechoic chamber after all and those reflections play a huge role in our experience.
If you find drivers with similar geometry, specs, copy the box, match crossover slopes, EQ the response to match then yes you can clone a speaker and it will sound very similar.... Power handling, excursion, fs and obviously many other T/S parameters are used to meet a design goal. I like the way my 15W/8530s produce bass and midrange when I apply more power then I should to that 5" driver. Could I get there with a high excursion tang band driver of similar diameter and a DSP? I guess but now I have to worry about the order in which I power off things, power outages, extra amplifier channels etc.
My point here is that cheap drivers often don't exhibit the criteria necessary to meet all the goals of an "Audiophile" speaker. On axis at minimal power doesn't show the guts of the problem.
Also, have you listened to electrostatic speakers or planar magnetic headphones? I can play with my EQ for days and they still sound inherently different. I challenge you to setup a test equalizing a pair of dynamic headphones to match a pair of electrostatic or planar magnetic headphones. In a randomized blind listening test, I almost guarantee that a statistically significant percentage of head-fi folks that have listened to both technologies will readily discern the difference.
All this said, I do appreciate the work you've gone through here. Frequency response is still king, I agree. I'm just suggesting that there are still many valid reasons why audiophiles drool over drivers like SB Satori Woofers and RAAL tweeters. A more exhaustive blind test would reveal this in my opinion.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
If you find drivers with similar geometry, specs, copy the box, match crossover slopes, EQ the response to match then yes you can clone a speaker and it will sound very similar.... Power handling, excursion, fs and obviously many other T/S parameters are used to meet a design goal. I like the way my 15W/8530s produce bass and midrange when I apply more power then I should to that 5" driver. Could I get there with a high excursion tang band driver of similar diameter and a DSP? I guess but now I have to worry about the order in which I power off things, power outages, extra amplifier channels etc.
My point here is that cheap drivers often don't exhibit the criteria necessary to meet all the goals of an "Audiophile" speaker. On axis at minimal power doesn't show the guts of the problem.
Also, have you listened to electrostatic speakers or planar magnetic headphones? I can play with my EQ for days and they still sound inherently different. I challenge you to setup a test equalizing a pair of dynamic headphones to match a pair of electrostatic or planar magnetic headphones. In a randomized blind listening test, I almost guarantee that a statistically significant percentage of head-fi folks that have listened to both technologies will readily discern the difference.
All this said, I do appreciate the work you've gone through here. Frequency response is still king, I agree. I'm just suggesting that there are still many valid reasons why audiophiles drool over drivers like SB Satori Woofers and RAAL tweeters. A more exhaustive blind test would reveal this in my opinion.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
I don't really want to keep repeating myself but the whole point of the story was top say that I thought both sets of speaker were great to start with but over time I began to dislike one pair of speakers (the Dynaudio).
So for me, this test wouldn't tell me what the "worlds best midrange" was. I'd need to live with each driver for a long period of time before making any decisions (and probably hooked up to a woofer and tweeter).
The patriot in you awoke and Kef won! Simply subjective and perfectly valid!
These things can't be just filtered out easily in sighted experiments. The late
KEF founder was awarded the OBE by HM Queen Elizabeth II.
The patriot in you awoke and Kef won! Simply subjective and perfectly valid!
These things can't be just filtered out easily in sighted experiments. The late
KEF founder was awarded the OBE by HM Queen Elizabeth II.
Carefully tailored DSP FR correction surprisingly improves the sound of the speakers, IME as well.
The real question is, the most audiophiles prefer mechanical correction to the digital correction, but which solution brings the better end result to us in real world situation?
My opinion is doing everything mechanically or digitally is not the most practical. I mean I would choose $100 unit with much better mechanical response than $10 unit, but even if I use $1500 unit, I would still use DSP to correct something imperfect.
The real question is, the most audiophiles prefer mechanical correction to the digital correction, but which solution brings the better end result to us in real world situation?
My opinion is doing everything mechanically or digitally is not the most practical. I mean I would choose $100 unit with much better mechanical response than $10 unit, but even if I use $1500 unit, I would still use DSP to correct something imperfect.
Please, point me to a link that shows a blind test with serious data, etc... that demonstrate it.
I know from experience that the most neutral speakers are not necesairy the best sounding to my ears. Listening is subjective, and you need to find the speakers that fit you the most. I prefer my selfbuild Alpair 10M boxes (that are not neutral at all) to (even toplevel) Genelec or Dynaudio studio monitors that should be neutral. Just like i prefer the colouration of tube amps above the very flat solid state amps used in many studio's. I prefer the bloated sound of vinyl and tape recorders above the mathematical precision of high end digital audio.
The best midrange is subjective, the most neutral midrange not, but that is not the same...
Second, the room and it's acoustics where the test is done is always a factor you can't exclude (except in an 100% neutral anechoic chamber, but i don't think you can afford that kind of listening room). So the test is bloated, but that does not mean it's useless off course. You can always learn more about the drivers in such tests, just don't expect it's 100% accurate.
The best midrange is subjective, the most neutral midrange not, but that is not the same...
Second, the room and it's acoustics where the test is done is always a factor you can't exclude (except in an 100% neutral anechoic chamber, but i don't think you can afford that kind of listening room). So the test is bloated, but that does not mean it's useless off course. You can always learn more about the drivers in such tests, just don't expect it's 100% accurate.
Last edited:
This midrange blind test is the 2nd ''big'' test i organized (scientific considerations, highly-controlled environment, with many participants, etc..) and the first one, conducted in 2010, was about digital audio files.
MP3 64kbps v.s. MP3 128kbps v.s. AAC 256kpbs v.s. 16/44 v.s. 24/96
Results ?
Please refer to my conclusion #1 on the first page of this thread.
That is the second time I overestimated auditory capacities of people/audiophiles... I won't do that again.
- Short-term memory is known to be between 10 and 20 seconds.
- Human's hearing FR resolution seems to be more or less 1/3 octave and sometimes as bad as 1 full octave
- Human's hearing SPL resolution seems to be no less than 0.5db and probably between 0.7db and 1.5db depending on the frequency and people
- When biases (psychoacoustics) kicks in, you can pretty much believe anything others/yourself/your brains tells you. Doesn't mean it's real. Doesn't mean you can actually prove it.
----------------
Let me tell you what i felt yesterday, when a colleague took the controls of the test so i can pass it myself.
First, let me brag a bit about my results: got 15/15. Highest score to date.
Now, let's talk about what i felt:
It took my highest level of concentration and focus possible. Not nose-bleeding level of concentration, but the kind i wouldnt be able to sustain for more than 30-40min. without some serious fatigue and/or poor results.
Knowing what the test was about and all the potential ''tricks'', i slightly moved my head left and right, in the hope to find some patterns (directivity, power response, reflections, etc..). I could not.
Finally, it was clear the best way to successfully identify the drivers, was to focus on the 1/2 octave missing from driver A.
Easy ? Not so much. In fact, i had to rely on my short term memory and strongly concentrate to keep said memory from the last driver played for each excerpt, which was driver B. Then, i'd have to focus on the contrast of driver X, in the hope my short term memory was still accurate.
The actual matchup #1 (the ''easy-level'') is a really great threshold: it separate, in a somewhat cruel fashion, people who can listen to subtle differences from people who cannot.
Some people failed the test and were really annoyed by it. Frustrated, even. And i'm not talking audiophiles, only ''normal'' people who do not rely on spotting 1/2 octave in their lives/hobbies/jobs...
Bottomline, don't underestimate my conclusion #1.
fatmarley's experience mirrors mine. The big question is what is behind this perception we like to think we share but I do not think we do.
Why is there not a standard for good music reproduction we can all agree upon? The more I think about this I think it may be simple. None of our systems sound anything like real music - i think we can agree on this. For us to enjoy our systems requires much filling in the blanks by the ear/brain. I have come to think that each of our ear/brain systems are better at filling in some blanks better than others. Whether this is learned or inherent would be impossible to figure out. Some of us are better at flattening frequency response errors in our heads, some of us better at aligning phase errors and on and on.
I have found that more often than not familiarity breeds contempt with a music system, hence the love of tweaks. Many times it is the fact that they sound different more than giving any actual improvement; gives the ear/brain a new puzzle to solve? Who knows? So the fact that fatmarley was happier with his KEF's I doubt had anything to do with chauvinism. Whether from cultural indoctrination or the way his brain is wired he knows what he can enjoy. There is no question his big point is that only time listening to a component can tell you what something really "sounds" like. It takes weeks for me to find out if something is mildly annoying or annoying beyond usefulness. Hearing a difference is easy, assessing the difference takes time.
So I hope the tweaked inexpensive driver can deliver long term enjoyment and hope to hear reports after some real exposure to the sound of the driver.
My biggest concern is the possibility of the digital manipulation becoming noticeable and then moving on to annoying over time. Not to say digital manipulation will never be transparent. I would find it hard to believe than mini-dsp is there. I am basing this on trying to get music out of a computer for many years to find it is not there, yet, either.
Everyone loves the giant killer, no one more than I. I have been responsible for making many cotton purses from sow's ears but never attained the silk purse. I hope someone can find a way.
Why is there not a standard for good music reproduction we can all agree upon? The more I think about this I think it may be simple. None of our systems sound anything like real music - i think we can agree on this. For us to enjoy our systems requires much filling in the blanks by the ear/brain. I have come to think that each of our ear/brain systems are better at filling in some blanks better than others. Whether this is learned or inherent would be impossible to figure out. Some of us are better at flattening frequency response errors in our heads, some of us better at aligning phase errors and on and on.
I have found that more often than not familiarity breeds contempt with a music system, hence the love of tweaks. Many times it is the fact that they sound different more than giving any actual improvement; gives the ear/brain a new puzzle to solve? Who knows? So the fact that fatmarley was happier with his KEF's I doubt had anything to do with chauvinism. Whether from cultural indoctrination or the way his brain is wired he knows what he can enjoy. There is no question his big point is that only time listening to a component can tell you what something really "sounds" like. It takes weeks for me to find out if something is mildly annoying or annoying beyond usefulness. Hearing a difference is easy, assessing the difference takes time.
So I hope the tweaked inexpensive driver can deliver long term enjoyment and hope to hear reports after some real exposure to the sound of the driver.
My biggest concern is the possibility of the digital manipulation becoming noticeable and then moving on to annoying over time. Not to say digital manipulation will never be transparent. I would find it hard to believe than mini-dsp is there. I am basing this on trying to get music out of a computer for many years to find it is not there, yet, either.
Everyone loves the giant killer, no one more than I. I have been responsible for making many cotton purses from sow's ears but never attained the silk purse. I hope someone can find a way.
I heard that a lot. The whole concept of ''you listen to something over a long period of time and only then truth reveals itself'' kind of thing...
I'm sorry but i don't know of any scientific facts that supports that.
On the contrary.
Again, you should refer to psychoacoustics and short-term memory:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Short-term_memory
Everyone here is annoyed by his own current system somehow, otherwise no reason to spend time in audio forum, I guess.
Everyone here is annoyed by his own current system somehow, otherwise no reason to spend time in audio forum, I guess.
Exactly!
I am only saying it will be interesting to hear what you think after some time has passed. I figure you do intend to listen to what you come up with in some kind of system?
What I said has to do with short term memory is beyond me.
You might be surprised to learn that science, at this point in time, has not explained everything and many times has changed its mind over why things are the way they are. A tool, not a belief system ... ideally.
I had no intention of saying anything discouraging. I sincerely hope you have found a method to give great sound to people who cannot and/or refuse to spend silly money on an audio system.
Of course, the low cost of the driver is being offset with the cost of the manipulators.
Ok I see what you're saying. I don't think anyone thinks this small study is the last word in speaker testing. The op is stating things in an over the top manner to spark conversation.
My thoughts on speakers also change and adapt over time and I never make a final discision just from measurements, I need to put it in my system and listen to it for a while. I think this is how most people would agree, I mean sometimes it takes a couple of weeks just to get the speakers positioned right.