SB Acoustics Satori Monitor - Page 17 - diyAudio
Go Back   Home > Forums > Commercial Sector > Vendor Forums > Vendor's Bazaar

Vendor's Bazaar Commercial Vendors large & small hawking their wares

Please consider donating to help us continue to serve you.

Ads on/off / Custom Title / More PMs / More album space / Advanced printing & mass image saving
Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 12th October 2012, 12:45 AM   #161
diyAudio Member
 
5th element's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: England
This was something that you were provided with, given the files to listen for yourself. The point was it doesn't matter what you listen to the files on, headphones, loudspeakers, whatever, but headphones make the most sense as they generally have the highest resolving power.

One sound file has the sound as it appears on the CD and then the others have had the sound split and then recombined with the associated filters phase shift applied to it. Obviously the summed amplitude is perfectly flat, only the phase altering effects of the filters was added.

This wasn't really a test of which one is better, just a test of can you tell the difference, in other words is the phase shift really audible. I couldn't tell any difference, I did the test over headphones. Maybe I would have detected small changes spatially if I'd done this via loudspeakers, but what I took from this was that the differences between say a 2nd order LW or a 4th order were negligible at best and that it's foolish to opt for a shallower filter just for the sake of using a shallow filter.

Some designers appear to choose using a shallow slope at the expense of all other design parameters, due to the simple belief that the shallower xover will sound better because it introduces less phase shift. That test helped to show that that way of thinking is tenuous at best and that it is always better to use a steeper filter if it brings about improvements in other areas.

It is nice though when you get a pair of drivers that work well enough together so that you have the option of using either 2nd to 4th order slopes. Usually this requires drivers such as the ones you are using here though so you're probably going to have a lot of fun trying out different crossovers
__________________
What the hell are you screamin' for? Every five minutes there's a bomb or somethin'! I'm leavin! bzzzz!
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2012, 07:16 AM   #162
gornir is offline gornir  Sweden
diyAudio Member
 
gornir's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Sweden
Quote:
Originally Posted by 5th element View Post
As Goran says, doing the measurements to allow you to accurately simulate/design for the phase relationship may sound like something concrete, but in reality it's anything but. Very small changes in microphone height, cone/dome geometry, inaccuracies in your turntables motion for making off axis measurements, will mean that two sets of measurements, done on different days, can easily end up giving you a couple of mm difference in this regard.

This isn't really all that much of a problem though and for a couple of reasons. The first is that any change in listening height, be it up or down by only a couple of cms will have a similar effect in as much as the acoustic centres don't change, but you've effectively done the same thing by changing the relative path differences between the drivers to your ears. This of course is what causes lobing in the vertical axis so it's important you pay attention to this to a certain degree.

Now when you're in the design phase, what you should be doing is paying attention to the phase tracking and observing the reverse nulls to make sure that everything remains reasonably stable even if you adjust the relative offset by a few mms or if you alter the listening height. The lobing patterns around the crossover frequencies allow you see this rather well. If you've got a large/wide primary lobe then the design is going to be rather robust vs listening height, any off axis listening and also importantly component value tolerances/ variations. The latter is something that you shouldn't ignore because often you get 10% variation and depending on how well you've designed your xover these variations could have very little effect, or could have some quite severe (read unacceptable) consequences.

What this means though, is that if you''ve got a good design, all the little 'errors' you could call them, ie from the slight changes in measurement conditions, or in listening habits, tend to become enough of a non issue so that you don't need to obsess over them. Of course, as Goran says, it doesn't hurt to optimise a design for perfection, when your head happens to be optimally aligned at that one given listening distance, but really the important thing is to make sure that it will function well over a range of conditions.

Sorry for the long OT!
As always a very nice and detailed sum-up from 5th element!

As Joachim says, designing loudspeakers is like making art.

There so many details to consider when making loudspeakers. Some are small and some are crucial for a successful design. I'ts easy to be obsessed by details that in the big picture doesn't count for much, but puzzling each and every bit together is what makes it an art in my opinion.

Of course, each and every constructor builds in it's own sound preferences/philosophy into the design. It's hard not to make a subjective sounding loudspeakers. Perhaps professionals in the industry is better in doing more objective designs that fits a broader public, I don't know?

Often when I listen to loudspeakers at Hifi shops and shows I end up with liking some parts of the design, but seldom the whole design. It inspires me though in my own search for the "holy grail" of sound and makes me jealously over the loudspeaker cabinet design and finish.

Sorry for my babbling!

Regards

/Göran
__________________
Author of the "AudioExcite Loudspeaker Design" website
http://www.audioexcite.com
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2012, 11:06 AM   #163
diyAudio Member
 
Joachim Gerhard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
I agree, when we switched between an L/R4 with and without phase correction the difference was small. I could hear differences with artificial signals like a needle ( Dirak) impulse. The phase corrected version sounded "tick, tick, tick" whereas the non corrected sounded "tock, tock, tock". On music the difference was much harder to tell.
Flat amplitude response and good radiation pattern are the most important goals.
That is also the reason i will design a L/R4, just for comparison. It has also the advantage that out of band artifacts like distortion is well suppressed and the drivers overlap only over narrow range. I found another problem about
that i talked shortly before. A passive L/R4 can be quiet complex and passive components have losses.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2012, 11:39 AM   #164
diyAudio Member
 
Joachim Gerhard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
I measured the Satori woofer against the SEAS ER18RNX ( 4 Ohm version ).
Here are the amplitude responses.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Satori 16 Seas ENR.pdf (19.9 KB, 403 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2012, 11:42 AM   #165
diyAudio Member
 
Joachim Gerhard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Here is a comparison of harmonic distortion. I raised the volume much higher then on my last test to bring out second harmonic better.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Satori woofer harm dist high.pdf (18.7 KB, 288 views)
File Type: pdf SEAS ENR180 RNX4 harm dist high.pdf (18.0 KB, 253 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2012, 12:40 PM   #166
just another
diyAudio Moderator
 
wintermute's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sydney
Blog Entries: 22
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joachim Gerhard View Post
I measured the Satori woofer against the SEAS ER18RNX ( 4 Ohm version ).
Here are the amplitude responses.
Up to 3K they are very similar, I guess that the baffle is making most of the contribution to the irregularities in the response curve, though the dips in the 1-2K region are definitely more pronounced in the Satori, so I assume that the driver is also contributing in this area. It's interesting as I have a similar 10db Suck out in my Morels but at around 2.1Khz That I've never been able to work out the cause of.

Could you do a < 1cm nearfiled measurement of the Satori? I'd be very interested to see that

Tony.
__________________
Any intelligence I may appear to have is purely artificial!
Some of my photos
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2012, 01:03 PM   #167
diyAudio Member
 
Joachim Gerhard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
The Seas is less extended because the membrane is stiffer and the motor has much more inductance. The small wrinkles come from the baffle but the dip over 1khz is real in both drivers. I have made a near field response of the Satorin in 10cm. If that is enough i can post it again.
What it also obvious is that the Satori is much lower in distortion. Second harmonic is half and third really low. This is an exceptional extended and low distortion driver.
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2012, 01:04 PM   #168
diyAudio Member
 
5th element's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: England
That's better from the Satori, crank up the drive level and the third harmonic drops as the SnR increases. Now we get to see more of what you're paying for.

I agree that a Satori nearfield would be interesting, but mainly if done right near the surround. This would let us see when the driver actually stops being pistonic, which would be interesting considering its extremely wide on axis bandwidth.
__________________
What the hell are you screamin' for? Every five minutes there's a bomb or somethin'! I'm leavin! bzzzz!
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2012, 01:06 PM   #169
diyAudio Member
 
Joachim Gerhard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Here is the Satori in 10cm. I can do a 1cm sweep too but not today.
Attached Files
File Type: pdf Satori Bass nearfield 0°- 4.pdf (39.1 KB, 177 views)
  Reply With Quote
Old 12th October 2012, 01:08 PM   #170
diyAudio Member
 
Joachim Gerhard's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Yes, it breaks up in bending waves over 1kHz but in the far field the summed response is rather flat. All membranes that are not from ultra stiff material do that.
  Reply With Quote

Reply


Hide this!Advertise here!
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
SB Acoustics 3 ways cosmindaniel12 Multi-Way 39 2nd August 2014 03:30 AM
More T/S specs needed for SB Acoustics mcmahon48 Multi-Way 2 15th August 2010 12:34 PM
All SB Acoustics MTM ?? Andy G Multi-Way 12 26th September 2009 12:35 PM
Anybody familiar with SB Acoustics zimjj Multi-Way 0 13th March 2009 10:30 PM
SB Acoustics... The stuff looks good sardonx Multi-Way 20 16th February 2008 08:15 AM


New To Site? Need Help?

All times are GMT. The time now is 07:16 AM.


vBulletin Optimisation provided by vB Optimise (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2014 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright ©1999-2014 diyAudio

Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.3.2