'Mixed up', how.....? I presumed '45' was referring, at least in part, to the speaker cabinet's influence on the ambient sound field which I felt could be minimized in a home setup as I had described (as well as by using other techniques).
As a matter of fact, the Iron Lawbreaker is configured to have matching lateral dispersion from the woofer and HF horn at the xover frequency and the lower vertical lobe null to be immediately below the speaker which is a good thing with a typical listening setup.
As a matter of fact, the Iron Lawbreaker is configured to have matching lateral dispersion from the woofer and HF horn at the xover frequency and the lower vertical lobe null to be immediately below the speaker which is a good thing with a typical listening setup.
Last edited:
When using a good quality dome or ribbon tweeter, and listening to acoustical instruments at realistic levels, I can't see the need for a super efficiency HF driver.
No that's not what I'm saying, two different speakers both measuring very good will still sound different to the ear, only carefull listening can decide which one sound more like the real instrument playing.
Measurements alone can't describe the ultimate quality of a speaker (or system), to me High Fidelity is a combination of good measurements and realistic sound reproduction.
I agree its not Hi Fidelity, and only partly marketeing, IMO its what most people want: they want there systems to "sound great" no matter what they play. And lets face it, unless your listening to a single stereo mic pair (very rare) thats very accurate (also rarely used), accuracy is artificially made in the mix. And how can you be sure your getting an accurate reproduction of that mix when you never heard the mix while it was made. The closest way is with measurements trying to get "a wire with gain".
You will never get 2 different speakers measuring identically (not even 2 of the same model unles they have been matched at the manufacturer), so of course they will not sound the same, but just because you pick one over another while I pick the other one dosnt mean the one you pick is better.
But they are still "pro" drivers, aren't they? (I have not used the Meyer monitor stuff).
I do quite agree with the post about the vintage pro drivers. Those that were designed with lower SPLs and lower power in mind. They tend to be better for home use than the current crop of "abuse proof" pro drivers.
Not a hard and fast rule, but a general trend.
Of course they would not measure identically but both can have good measurements.
Just for one example, say one set of speakers manage to recreate a guitar in such a way that you can hear the sound originate from a place in the soundstage, the size of a real guitar, the other set larger than a real guitar, which set is the best? Tell me how you will measure that.
How do you know it wasnt mixed to sound bigger than a real guitar? (this is often done)
Precisely correct. Accuracy is NOT a subjective thing, it is completely objective. But the two things are NOT different at all as many here would like to believe. The fact that I do all my designs by the numbers and yet everyone who hears them finds them to be subjectively prefered is a pretty convincing situation IMO. One can ignore all the data if they want, but that's not going to get them anywhere in the end. Trying to understand how and why this situation exists is what will pay off in the final analysis.
It's not just the driver to sound. It's the full loudspeaker with its characteristic modes of vibrations. This has a negative effect just as the room.
The first generation sound (that is what comes out of the front side of the drivers only) can be obtained by room passive conditioning: passive absorption. The back-wave from the drivers must be absorbed but only selectively in order to avoid anechoic conditions.
Major problems are at low frequencies.
The lower the frequency the larger absorption volume. The absorption volume increases because the absorption coefficient of the good phono-materials falls quite rapidly with frequency. However you can't fill the full room because it doesn't sound good and precise positioning (according to room modes of vibration) becomes extremely important.
A small speaker tends to behave like point source and this is very important because it makes easier the conditioning of the room.
A large baffle = large radiant surface. You have little chance to control the interaction of the first generation sound wit that surface and then the interaction of that large radiant surface with your room. I am not saying it is impossible but it's making things even more complicated where it is not necessary, IMHO.
Cheers,
45
Then to me it is a bad recording and may end up as a microwave oven experiment. 🙂
I guess there are enough good recordings to hear when one suddenly sound wrong, obviously that recording would not be used for such evaluations.
Hi there Doug,
My previous statements were deliberate assumptions - hypotheses intended to promote debate. I have no doubt that there are some accurate 'prosound' drivers out there, just in general, I wonder how they compare to high-end hi-fi drivers in that respect.
JF
Hi Gedlee, thanks for taking the time to reply.
Hmmm, an interesting point. So the differences are largely the result of market forces, would you say? Would you also agree that there are different application criteria as well? My position (currently!) is that both types have their place. I can't see how a driver that has been optimized for maximum SPL, for example, would also poses superior distortion performance. With regard to dynamics and efficiency being related, I completely agree, however there may be cases in which that relation fails. For example, if an increase in distortion content boosts output, the efficiency rating would 'improve', however dynamic response may suffer.
Are you certain of this? Perhaps not in the case of Faraday rings that reside above and below the pole piece, but what of the type that encases the pole piece. For that the pole piece would be required to be smaller in diameter, than it would otherwise be, by twice the thickness of the copper which surrounds it. However small, I would tend to think that any time you remove material from the pole piece, and widen the magnetic gap, there will be a reduction in magnetic field strength as perceived by the coil windings. This would result in a lower efficiency rating, would it not?
Check out the end of the 6th paragraph found on Wikipedia:
Loudspeaker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"On the other hand, the copper cap requires a wider voice-coil gap, with increased magnetic reluctance; this reduces available flux, requiring a slightly larger magnet for equivalent performance."
That is interesting. I must admit to an assumption of lighter cones being used, as certainly a reduction in moving mass is one way to gain efficiency. However, (something of a tangent!) with regard to cone material I have noticed prosound drivers tend to use paper, or some mixture involving paper. I have heard some great paper drivers, but there are those who would suggest that such soft cone materials suffer from energy storage, the likes of which smears impulse response. A stiff magnesium cone, for example, may do better in this respect, but certainly is a little on the exotic side for prosound gear. Perhaps this is an example which highlights the need for both types of driver?
You make a strong argument, but I can't agree entirely. I would suggest that the difference is found in the application. For example, say you want to fill a moderately sized living room with clean, dynamic sound, at near live performance SPL. In this case the prosound drivers show an advantage. In fact, I am considering a mostly-prosound based OB dipole for such an application. However, in the case of near-field (relatively), modest SPL applications, would quality hi-fi drivers not have an advantage in terms of distortion performance and perhaps smoothness of frequency response?
JF
Hmmm, an interesting point. So the differences are largely the result of market forces, would you say? Would you also agree that there are different application criteria as well? My position (currently!) is that both types have their place. I can't see how a driver that has been optimized for maximum SPL, for example, would also poses superior distortion performance. With regard to dynamics and efficiency being related, I completely agree, however there may be cases in which that relation fails. For example, if an increase in distortion content boosts output, the efficiency rating would 'improve', however dynamic response may suffer.
Are you certain of this? Perhaps not in the case of Faraday rings that reside above and below the pole piece, but what of the type that encases the pole piece. For that the pole piece would be required to be smaller in diameter, than it would otherwise be, by twice the thickness of the copper which surrounds it. However small, I would tend to think that any time you remove material from the pole piece, and widen the magnetic gap, there will be a reduction in magnetic field strength as perceived by the coil windings. This would result in a lower efficiency rating, would it not?
Check out the end of the 6th paragraph found on Wikipedia:
Loudspeaker - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
"On the other hand, the copper cap requires a wider voice-coil gap, with increased magnetic reluctance; this reduces available flux, requiring a slightly larger magnet for equivalent performance."
That is interesting. I must admit to an assumption of lighter cones being used, as certainly a reduction in moving mass is one way to gain efficiency. However, (something of a tangent!) with regard to cone material I have noticed prosound drivers tend to use paper, or some mixture involving paper. I have heard some great paper drivers, but there are those who would suggest that such soft cone materials suffer from energy storage, the likes of which smears impulse response. A stiff magnesium cone, for example, may do better in this respect, but certainly is a little on the exotic side for prosound gear. Perhaps this is an example which highlights the need for both types of driver?
You make a strong argument, but I can't agree entirely. I would suggest that the difference is found in the application. For example, say you want to fill a moderately sized living room with clean, dynamic sound, at near live performance SPL. In this case the prosound drivers show an advantage. In fact, I am considering a mostly-prosound based OB dipole for such an application. However, in the case of near-field (relatively), modest SPL applications, would quality hi-fi drivers not have an advantage in terms of distortion performance and perhaps smoothness of frequency response?
JF
Well-phrased comment! Cerwin-Vega is an interesting manufacturer, and that is a great point you've brought up. They tend to walk the line between 'pro' and home use. A friend of mine had a pair of D.J. speakers made by Cerwin Vega's HED division. He used them at home, and though they looked a little rough (they had seen some battle!) I was impressed by their dynamics and low-end extension given the smallish cabinet size. Unfortunately they had a wave-guide/shallow horn plastic tweeter that was noticeably directional and squawky, but it was a 2-way with a 12 inch woofer, so it was probably being stretched to distortion on the low end.
Quite the opposite I found.
Pro- (high efficiency) speakers is not only good at playing loud. Consistency of tonal quality and dynamics in the medium to low SPL is also their strong point. This is one of the main reasons I love them.
Maybe 98% of the time, the playing volume of my system is about equal to or even quieter than normal indoor conversation. The sensitivity of the system above 200Hz is more than 105dB/w. In such low demand, I still appreciate and prefer the high efficiency.
BTW, a lovely bonus, I'm fully satisfied with 0.7w amp on it (the mid-high section), even when watching movies or concert DVDs with bothering SPL.😎
Just because you dont like it dosnt mean it was a bad recording/mix. Who says recorded music has to sound like a real instrument in your room. Thats a very narrow minded point of view. From your definition Pink Floyd has never made a good recording. Do also think movies should have no edits in them?
Unfortunately I can not edit my last post - I just want to say that my previous post, in which I stated I did not care entirely for the sound of the Cerwin-Vega 2 way, was not intended as a slight towards gedlee's products. I was just checking out the gedlee site and noticed those systems are 2-ways with large woofers. They look nice, by the way!
Did you read the reviews? I think they pretty much tell the story. Those are not just some reviews, carefully choosen, those are all the reviews. No one hasn't liked the system. It's not a matter of peoples taste, better is better, it's really that simple. This idea that some speakers are good at some things and others at other things is hog-wash. Exactly what marketing wants you to believe, otherwise how are they going to "spin" their tale on you and get you to buy their product?
By the way, you seem to have an open mind. That's a rare thing in the audiofool community. Keep it up and you will reach Nirvana.
I have stated several times that I'm talking about recordings of acoustical instruments, if you listen to amplified and other electronic instruments, then by all means use any system and speakers you like because there are no reference to what the system should sound like anyway.
Who were talking about movies, SQ have very little to do with it.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.