TMM's and mark100's posts combined are state of the art fundamental and universal basics. Deviations from these ideals are very common problems and not easy to do right at all.
There are many well respected loudspeakers that break these rules and with different directivity "profiles". I don't want any colorations and I prefer low directivity in well behaving rooms. I understand that many people are living between tile or concrete walls, then high directivity is a benefit.
There are many well respected loudspeakers that break these rules and with different directivity "profiles". I don't want any colorations and I prefer low directivity in well behaving rooms. I understand that many people are living between tile or concrete walls, then high directivity is a benefit.
I agree with Juhazi on the wise points (and his own wise comments) in the post of mark100 (not unexpected).
But what mark100 says is applicable to commercial speakers and to Toole's generic good Harman speaker and possibly to a person dedicated to making the ideal generic two-driver box with passive crossover for their own use in all rooms of their house. And is there anybody who would argue against designing a speaker with all the "family values" that acoustic religion imparts to us... whether or not audible?
Best not to apply the imperatives of commercial products to the process of DIY. My little point is that to get good sound you need adjustment* after ANY speaker is put in place** and not waste your time trying, as OP seeks, to sweat the fine details before.
B.
*you can do trial adjustments and then wire-up a permanent passive crossover, fiddle with diffraction, nail panels to your wall, etc. if you have some personal beef with DSP
**not least is speaker location in the room (pity I never documented the big variations in a test of 14 subwoofer locations at one end of my room)
Last edited:
Except if you are also chief designer of commercial products
I could easily leave my commercial designs as they are and listen in every room in our house without tuning factory preset crossover. Just adjust listening setup as good as possible and then minimal room EQ with dsp if needed. Good generic design is flexible and difficult to improve in any place.
My apologies Oneminde,
yes, mag is an abbreviation for frequency response, just like phase is an abbreviation for relative timing response
You are lucky to live in a home where all the rooms are nearly identical.
Couldn't be an element of bias in your remarks? And might some other commercial designer say your speakers sound awful in every room while his/her own are perfect?
B.
I don't believe my comments have anything to do with commercial products, or Toole's ideas, or any particular persons' ideas in general.
I hope my comments reflect a lot of time, experience, and open-minded personal observations, paying attention to those who continually prove they know what they are talking about ......
all in the never ending pursuit of excellent audio
I believe what I said applies to ANY attempt to achieve better audio....commercial or home.
And FWIW, I'm far from locked into a formula here...
At this moment, for comparison to my DIY efforts,
I have two pairs of full range electrostats running: Acoustat X in an average sized room, and Martin Logan CLS in a small room with stiff wall construction.
I have very high power Meyer 4-way actives, in a pretty large room.
And for heavens's sake, even Bose 901's in my garage.
All sound good to very excellent, depending on particular source material. They each fit the room they are in nicely.
They all really help for comparative evaluations to DIY.
You seem to designate commercial designs into a "generic 2-way design" bucket.
Commercial audio is so much more. IMHO, current commercial designs display technology, innovation, and pure science, to a relative degree above home audio, that it's hard not to laugh often at home audio.
The DIY designs being posted on these forums mimic commercial designs.
Look at all the synergy and line array posts...
....and I do believe they are built on the tuning process I posted
Last edited:
Interesting video. "How far do you want to go", well, that depend on the amount of OCD, desire to have very accurate products and acoustical performance. To each his own. Due to some many variations, the question becomes almost impossible to answer. One could go further than the loudspeaker and include the amplifier, DAC, source material and so forth... the real question perhaps land on: How much of the recording and reproduction do you want to or need to control...
It really depends on whether your target is accurate or listenable for the source material you enjoy.
Accurate = ruler flat frequency response at all listening axes, with less than 0.1% non-linear distortion.
Listenable = depends on what upstream
I will choose listenable over accurate when I have to make a compromise, due to music I like that may not have been mixed / engineered favourably.
Accurate and listenable recording examples - Dire Straits (Brothers in arms), Fleetwood Mac (Rumours)
Listenable (compromise accuracy) = Pretenders (Greatest Hits), Phil Collins (various)
I've worked out I need a "listenable switch" such that great recordings are allowed to shine through accurate playback, and overly forward / bright recordings need to compromise accuracy for listenability.
Accurate = ruler flat frequency response at all listening axes, with less than 0.1% non-linear distortion.
Listenable = depends on what upstream
I will choose listenable over accurate when I have to make a compromise, due to music I like that may not have been mixed / engineered favourably.
Accurate and listenable recording examples - Dire Straits (Brothers in arms), Fleetwood Mac (Rumours)
Listenable (compromise accuracy) = Pretenders (Greatest Hits), Phil Collins (various)
I've worked out I need a "listenable switch" such that great recordings are allowed to shine through accurate playback, and overly forward / bright recordings need to compromise accuracy for listenability.
I agree. Listenable is all that matters IMO.
However, going thru "speaker flat" to start, is the path to repeatable "listenable", on varying source material....
I think the real problem is, who the heck knows how a recording was made.
What was the mag and phase of the speakers used in the mastering studio?
What was the effect of the room?
Folks end up printing, what sounded good to them...on the system THEY were listening to...
When we hear a track that sounds right when running our system flat, it just means it was mastered on a flat system.
Whatever we have to do, to adjust tonal balance on a flat system, shows the inverse response of the mastering system.
IOW, if we have to turn down the highs, it's because the mastering studio had to turn them up to correct their lack of highs...(which then becomes our inverse problem!)...hence the need for us all to be adhering to flat..
All that said, I say screw flat when it come to source material, and tune to preference.....
I use a gain control on each section of a 4-way system, each driver section spanning 2-3 octaves.
Linear-phase allows smooth summation wherever levels are set (within about 10dB adjustment).
There's very few recordings this doesn't work for, when trying to make pleasing on a "flat system"...
That's not the case. Well designed in it's concept/category works well in different acoustics. Of course different designs; radiator types etc. sound different for sure and may work better or worse in some other room and for some other preference and music genres. But that's not the same as tuning for particular environment with other than basic room EQ at LF.
I've received positive feedback with single exception (which was not so unexpected). The most probable reason is that general design targets are the same here.
"Ruler flat" or within 3dB spl response is mentioned often here. Looks like it is too easy to forget when it means only on-axis measurement. Toole/Harman's studies get cited often too, the power response in listening window or RTA response at listening spot should be descending spl towards high freq. Response at listening spot with MMM (moving mic measurement) technique of a single loudspeaker is the best single measurement to correlate with the sound that we hear, in my opinion.
What gets forgotten is that these go together well by laws of physics, in most loudspeakers and rooms. Because of wide spread of wavelengths to be radiated, radiation pattern tends to get narrower when frequency goes up. Toole, Olive, Welti and others have done numerous listening test with real-world loudspeakers, that have different on-axis and power response "shapes", and consistently the ones that sound "best" are those that behave by the rule mentioned above. So, if your speaker has "untypical" radiation pattern, the on-axis response should not be straight, and most people think that it is not a good loudspeaker!
My personal preferation is towards speakers which have low directivity (in "window") like traditional 3-way and best of multiway dipoles and omnis. They sound natural and relaxed in a large room and not only for one seat. But I have many hi-fi friends who love more pinpoint-sharp stereo image and snappy transients (like in nearfield), that highly directive speakers deliver - they need different type of speakers!
I have read speaker tests and measurements for many decades, listened to them too - and I think that now I can "hear " the sound of a loudspeaker when I see it's construction and on-axis spl measurement.
What gets forgotten is that these go together well by laws of physics, in most loudspeakers and rooms. Because of wide spread of wavelengths to be radiated, radiation pattern tends to get narrower when frequency goes up. Toole, Olive, Welti and others have done numerous listening test with real-world loudspeakers, that have different on-axis and power response "shapes", and consistently the ones that sound "best" are those that behave by the rule mentioned above. So, if your speaker has "untypical" radiation pattern, the on-axis response should not be straight, and most people think that it is not a good loudspeaker!
My personal preferation is towards speakers which have low directivity (in "window") like traditional 3-way and best of multiway dipoles and omnis. They sound natural and relaxed in a large room and not only for one seat. But I have many hi-fi friends who love more pinpoint-sharp stereo image and snappy transients (like in nearfield), that highly directive speakers deliver - they need different type of speakers!
I have read speaker tests and measurements for many decades, listened to them too - and I think that now I can "hear " the sound of a loudspeaker when I see it's construction and on-axis spl measurement.
Last edited:
^Very well said.
I would not emphasis any single measurement. Good sound reproduction is combination of many many features which need quite a few different analysis though number of measurement could be much less than hundred.
On-axis does not have to be ruler flat but we better design directivity features (power, DI, off-axis within +/-60 deg) so that no need to compromise direct response to typical listening directions.
I would not emphasis any single measurement. Good sound reproduction is combination of many many features which need quite a few different analysis though number of measurement could be much less than hundred.
On-axis does not have to be ruler flat but we better design directivity features (power, DI, off-axis within +/-60 deg) so that no need to compromise direct response to typical listening directions.
It's good when we understand our preferences like you seem to be able to
On some recordings I think low directivity setups sound the best...on some, precise imaging sounds the best. A curious thing to me is that very live rooms often sound better to me with very low directivity, even omni type speakers. It's like if you can't beat the room, join it.
One of the reasons I keep different type systems running, is to remind myself of "horses for courses"...that I never really know what will make a recording sound the best...
If I had to pick one favorite all round system, it would be high constant directivity with an emphasis on transient response and high dynamic range / spl.......in a well tamed room.
But I like listening from 'the room' and also from adjacent rooms, which is a great way to evaluate a system IME ... can be very telling..
Best room of all is outside when i can get away with it....outside invariably shows how much clarity is lost indoors.
^I have 3-4 different systems too. My main system is with dipoles (AINOgradient) in a largish room with RT varying between .2-.4. speakers on the long wall. Second is an almost dead small HT room with 6½" coaxials, RT .2. speakers on short wall near corners. Third is summer cabin with omnipolar speakers next to wall (not measured but RT might be around .4) Others are temporary setups with various speakers in various setups. 1. and 2. sound very different and it is nice to have both!
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.