Hello,
RE: "Regardless of how high end, and low distortion they were. I just knew that certain other subs seemed to have a VERY fast and present leading edge to the bass. Making bass line fret changes visceral."
If you search the web, there has been some pretty good documentation that the speed of a woofer is directly tied to its inductance. As inductance opposes current changes, that seems to make perfect sense. Likely what you were hearing was that the lower inductance woofers were faster responding. FWIW.
RE: "Regardless of how high end, and low distortion they were. I just knew that certain other subs seemed to have a VERY fast and present leading edge to the bass. Making bass line fret changes visceral."
If you search the web, there has been some pretty good documentation that the speed of a woofer is directly tied to its inductance. As inductance opposes current changes, that seems to make perfect sense. Likely what you were hearing was that the lower inductance woofers were faster responding. FWIW.
But in this case the Op is saying that he only changed the sub and is hearing a difference in what we would think would be a result of changing upper mids lower treb....
I too have experienced somthing similar a few times. Messing with subs I have heard differences in the attack and edge, that subjectivly faster tighter leading edge. At least thats what it seems to the ear.
I noticed it most obvious once in a car sub. We had a low mass 15 in polyprop cone with a foam vynl based surround mounted to a thick baffle that used the trunk as the cabnet. It was quite solid and the trunk was well damped with heavy pads.
The cone was crap in various box systems in the house. Even tryed it open baffle and it was a bit better but couldnt handle any power.
So on a hunch I modified the cones suspensions mechanical property by coating the surround with a thin layer of silicone calk. The suspension went from that gooy feel to a spring like feel. The change in the sound was so pronounced I would never have an appreciation for it unless I heard it myself. It went from loose slow undnamic sounding to solid bouncy alive fast.
I have heard this happen another time with an 8 inch cone designed the same way. This time instead of changing the surrounds properties, I cut the spyder out and replaced it with a linear spring type of suspension made from tensioned kevlar treds. Again the same change in the sound of the bass.
Some years later I read in Martin Collums book " High Performance Loudspeakers" that aparently some manufacture noticed a similar thing and did some kind of test comparing a large number of comercial speakers and they found that consistantly the ones that got the highest scores in the bass region were those systems that had woofers with a high mechanical Q similar to the mods I made to the above examples.
Many will find reasions to say that this cannot be it. That somthing else is going on. I really dont know for sure a I too understand how very small changes in freq response can vastly alter the preception of sound. However based on my own experiences and then finding that Colloms sites a similar thing I suspect there is at least somthing to the cones suspension property that we may not understand how to measure/interpret properly.
I suspect many manufactures are on to this as I see the term "low loss surround"used quite a bit now. I also suspect based on other work Ive done that getting this right is easyer in a light cone than a heavy one. The heavyer stuff requires a thicker structure to suport it and once you make any rubber like structure thicker it may become more difficult to get the property you want
I too have experienced somthing similar a few times. Messing with subs I have heard differences in the attack and edge, that subjectivly faster tighter leading edge. At least thats what it seems to the ear.
I noticed it most obvious once in a car sub. We had a low mass 15 in polyprop cone with a foam vynl based surround mounted to a thick baffle that used the trunk as the cabnet. It was quite solid and the trunk was well damped with heavy pads.
The cone was crap in various box systems in the house. Even tryed it open baffle and it was a bit better but couldnt handle any power.
So on a hunch I modified the cones suspensions mechanical property by coating the surround with a thin layer of silicone calk. The suspension went from that gooy feel to a spring like feel. The change in the sound was so pronounced I would never have an appreciation for it unless I heard it myself. It went from loose slow undnamic sounding to solid bouncy alive fast.
I have heard this happen another time with an 8 inch cone designed the same way. This time instead of changing the surrounds properties, I cut the spyder out and replaced it with a linear spring type of suspension made from tensioned kevlar treds. Again the same change in the sound of the bass.
Some years later I read in Martin Collums book " High Performance Loudspeakers" that aparently some manufacture noticed a similar thing and did some kind of test comparing a large number of comercial speakers and they found that consistantly the ones that got the highest scores in the bass region were those systems that had woofers with a high mechanical Q similar to the mods I made to the above examples.
Many will find reasions to say that this cannot be it. That somthing else is going on. I really dont know for sure a I too understand how very small changes in freq response can vastly alter the preception of sound. However based on my own experiences and then finding that Colloms sites a similar thing I suspect there is at least somthing to the cones suspension property that we may not understand how to measure/interpret properly.
I suspect many manufactures are on to this as I see the term "low loss surround"used quite a bit now. I also suspect based on other work Ive done that getting this right is easyer in a light cone than a heavy one. The heavyer stuff requires a thicker structure to suport it and once you make any rubber like structure thicker it may become more difficult to get the property you want
Last edited:
I don't know global, there are a few things that need to come together but FR has to be up there with the best of them.
I've had good results from mediocre drivers. I think the point has to be why. Some expensive drivers sound good out of the box but I don't buy the connection.
DSP lacks the ability to fix acoustic and spatial abberations.
I agree with your last point.
I've had good results from mediocre drivers. I think the point has to be why. Some expensive drivers sound good out of the box but I don't buy the connection.
DSP lacks the ability to fix acoustic and spatial abberations.
I agree with your last point.
i would like to see trying eq 3rd order dominating driver to more pleasant 2nd order
Originally Posted by JonBocani View Post
2. Frequency Response is King.
3. Once EQ'd, a 10$ midrange can mimic a 1500$ midrange, if within mechanical/electrical limits.
4. DSP/EQ/in-room measure tools might be the best investment an audiophile can make in our era.
5. Others will have to continue spending hundreds and thousands for a natural uncorrected FR.
**************************************************************
My 2 pennies....
2. True.....because, you really can't get frequency response right, without everything else getting right.
3. Fairly true...if within mechanical/electrical limits....because, midrange is the easiest set of octaves to achieve good performance in. Lows and highs, and their integration with the midrange, are the difficulties IMO.
(It's a little unfair I think to use midrange drivers as examples of equivalent
capability for the whole spectrum.)
4. Very true, if for no other reason than learning....
5. True...the spending part that is
probably even if you subscribe to 4.
Good transient bass....
In my understanding, transient response = frequency response, and vice versa. Not kinda equal, exactly equal. This is why number 2. is true IMO.
IME, whenever bass sounds sluggish, fat, muddy, whatever lacks impact and clarity....that the issue is with the sub's freq response, relative levels to other drivers, poor crossover integration, bad time alignment, etc....
(This of course is ignoring room interaction, which can often be the dominant issue)
2. Frequency Response is King.
3. Once EQ'd, a 10$ midrange can mimic a 1500$ midrange, if within mechanical/electrical limits.
4. DSP/EQ/in-room measure tools might be the best investment an audiophile can make in our era.
5. Others will have to continue spending hundreds and thousands for a natural uncorrected FR.
**************************************************************
My 2 pennies....
2. True.....because, you really can't get frequency response right, without everything else getting right.
3. Fairly true...if within mechanical/electrical limits....because, midrange is the easiest set of octaves to achieve good performance in. Lows and highs, and their integration with the midrange, are the difficulties IMO.
(It's a little unfair I think to use midrange drivers as examples of equivalent
capability for the whole spectrum.)
4. Very true, if for no other reason than learning....
5. True...the spending part that is
probably even if you subscribe to 4.Good transient bass....
In my understanding, transient response = frequency response, and vice versa. Not kinda equal, exactly equal. This is why number 2. is true IMO.
IME, whenever bass sounds sluggish, fat, muddy, whatever lacks impact and clarity....that the issue is with the sub's freq response, relative levels to other drivers, poor crossover integration, bad time alignment, etc....
(This of course is ignoring room interaction, which can often be the dominant issue)
mark100, you have some interesting ideas. I don't have the time to run through them now, perhaps others will, but the one I will respond to is your statement about transient response = frequency response.
Good transient response is the driver's ability to accelerate and decelerate with limited lag. It's most noticeable/important with percussive sources.
Good transient response is the driver's ability to accelerate and decelerate with limited lag. It's most noticeable/important with percussive sources.
Hi Cal, yes, your definition is the one I accepted for a long time. But then a bunch of things led me to what I now believe.
....papers on 'fast vs slow bass', showing acceleration/deceleration to be pretty much a non-issue. (Will try to find one or two)
....my experience with pro-sound/live sound, getting drums and bass tight and right
...a pair of full range meyer mts4a, often used as drum monitors for bands the likes of Metallica. Talk about percussive hit and bass plucking goodness.
When asking meyer techs about them, they said bottom end hit and clarity comes because they are full range and phase coherent bottom to top.
....They pointed me to Bob McCarthy's works to see what they were talking about....example Sound Systems: Design and Optimization: Modern Techniques and Tools for Sound System Design and Alignment: Bob McCarthy: 9780415731010: Amazon.com: Books
The more I read, guys like him make it very evident that transient response=freq response. As does my testing/tuning.....
FWIW
I won't argue, as that is subjective. I was merely stating what good transient response is. Frequency response is independent of transient response was my point.
OK.
But...
I will use EQ on a not so "flat" speaker.
Now... FR will be "flat".
But I will have (worse) group delay and phase...
IME, it depends on what you are trying to EQ.
On a driver-by-driver basis, I know when fixing frequency variations with EQ accurately, phase also gets fixed. Minimum-phase variations.
But once drivers get combined into a system, the system doesn't act as well with EQ. Mucks with and through xovers, and makes the problems you mention.
But the big thing in my mind is, I can get a speaker right with EQ.....
...in fact I think I have to...
....by first fixing driver-by-driver variations (where phase is fixed too).
If I may continue, because it's kinda needed to explain where I'm coming from....
After getting drivers smoothed out individually, then of course they need to be combined with xovers that sum magnitude properly, while keeping adjacent phase traces laying on top of each other.
If that's accomplished, I find that I will have a smooth frequency response, and a smooth sloping phase trace that predominately reflects the slope of the crossovers used (the order of the crossovers).
This represents the minimum-phase curve in my understanding...(anyone please correct me if I'm wrong...I spend too much time in the linear phase world
If freq response variations at the system level don't respond to EQ fairly exactly, it means they are due to things that need to be fixed otherwise...
Related aside : I think the reason so many people like low order xovers is two-fold.
Their relatively lower slope makes for less group delay,
and importantly, it also makes it more likely that time-alignment mistakes won't show up in magnitude summation.
IOW, it's easier to get flatter phase traces to lay on top of each other, than steeper ones.
The point of all this rambling, is IMO when a speaker is constructed such that all the pieces are each smoothed and playing together in phase,
then freq response is flat, phase trace is smooth, impulse and step look good, and transient response is right. All are the same
Thx for listening...
Last edited:
Hi Cal, didn't mean to come off argumentative or dissing the accel/decel stuff..
Maybe I need to define what I think is transient response....I see it as the system response, the ability to produce transients as per impulse response...
I was talking about perception. I assumed a person would take care of the design themselves.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.