No I don't comprende. You'll have to have a demonstration for me to comprende. One may get lucky. The odds of luck are not often on the side of the gambler.😉
When it comes to gambling:
A speaker - say a typical 2-Way with crossover frequency above 2Khz
with discontinouus polar dispersion may be made sound well if adjusted
to a certain room and a certain listening distance.
I did this very often, according to listening distance the low pass
for the woofer has to be modified, the level of the tweeter at
crossover has to be matched also taking room reflections into account
and so on ...
As long as the room is not too reverberant and the listening distance
rather close this might work to some extent.
Having such a speaker whithout the specifical means for equalization,
it will only sound balanced in an environment similar to that particular
environment it was developed for or better say "in", because it was NOT
designed for variation of the acoustical environment.
And even in homely environment it will exhibit its own "sweet idiosyncrasies",
which are needed to give labour and bread to HiFi journalists while
writing about them.
How is the probabilty to hit the optimum conditions for our example
speaker, when placing it an arbitrary living room or a demonstration
room at a music show ??? It is gambling whith success always being
much less probable than failure.
And this is the main reason why - to me - at most music shows the sound
is very very bad. Am i the only one stating that good - balanced - sound
at music shows is an exception to the rule ?
If i enter a room where there is balanced sound and different recordings
can be heard in an enjoyful manner, in almost all cases there is a speaker
playing where much attention has been layed on its polar dispersion beeing
at least only varying smoothly with frequency.
There was a music fair in Germany which utilized rather small and emptied
hotel rooms ... the only speakers which - to me - could perform well under
these conditions were from a manufacturer who payed attention to smooth
varying dispersion and used a cardioid dispersion pattern from the midrange
upwards (there were no other smooth varying dispersion or CD type speakers
on that fair).
That were extremely bad listening conditions, and all other speaker
exhibitors would have done best to simply stay away from the fair,
as their products were not able to perform under these bad conditions.
And that was exactly what i told the demonstrator of that particular
speaker, who was surprised concerning my praise as he was used to demonstrate
his speakers day by day and hour by hour to people mostly not interested in
balanced sound but rather searching for entertainment and excitement.
Kind Regards
A speaker - say a typical 2-Way with crossover frequency above 2Khz
with discontinouus polar dispersion may be made sound well if adjusted
to a certain room and a certain listening distance.
I did this very often, according to listening distance the low pass
for the woofer has to be modified, the level of the tweeter at
crossover has to be matched also taking room reflections into account
and so on ...
As long as the room is not too reverberant and the listening distance
rather close this might work to some extent.
Having such a speaker whithout the specifical means for equalization,
it will only sound balanced in an environment similar to that particular
environment it was developed for or better say "in", because it was NOT
designed for variation of the acoustical environment.
And even in homely environment it will exhibit its own "sweet idiosyncrasies",
which are needed to give labour and bread to HiFi journalists while
writing about them.
How is the probabilty to hit the optimum conditions for our example
speaker, when placing it an arbitrary living room or a demonstration
room at a music show ??? It is gambling whith success always being
much less probable than failure.
And this is the main reason why - to me - at most music shows the sound
is very very bad. Am i the only one stating that good - balanced - sound
at music shows is an exception to the rule ?
If i enter a room where there is balanced sound and different recordings
can be heard in an enjoyful manner, in almost all cases there is a speaker
playing where much attention has been layed on its polar dispersion beeing
at least only varying smoothly with frequency.
There was a music fair in Germany which utilized rather small and emptied
hotel rooms ... the only speakers which - to me - could perform well under
these conditions were from a manufacturer who payed attention to smooth
varying dispersion and used a cardioid dispersion pattern from the midrange
upwards (there were no other smooth varying dispersion or CD type speakers
on that fair).
That were extremely bad listening conditions, and all other speaker
exhibitors would have done best to simply stay away from the fair,
as their products were not able to perform under these bad conditions.
And that was exactly what i told the demonstrator of that particular
speaker, who was surprised concerning my praise as he was used to demonstrate
his speakers day by day and hour by hour to people mostly not interested in
balanced sound but rather searching for entertainment and excitement.
Kind Regards
I have clearly stated what the polar response if useful for, but I do not agree that it is the most usefull. Like selecting a color TV, you have contrast (dynamic and status), resolution, color, refresh rate or delay time, ..., not one is more important than others, but rather it's necessary to take into consideration many aspects to help realize what specs are indicators for a good TV.
I agree, there can be no "one and only criterion", there are many
aspects of quality.
But having the polar dispersion smoothly varying with freqency
makes tonal balance and imaging more stable when varying the
listening postition.
It also yields consistent spectral fingerprints of reflected sound coming
from different directions of the room and thereby makes the speaker
less identifyable as a sound source having its own location and
characteristic. It simply helps hiding the speaker behind the music.
That should at least be an agreed goal ...
As you used the TV allegory: What is a perfect TV good for, when color
and contrast are only stable within a viewing angle of +-5 degrees and
a room is needed which has to be enlighted in a special way to make the
TV work ?
To me dispersion pattern varying smoothly with frequency is something
like an "admission ticket" for sound quality being more reproducible
under different listening conditions.
And for that reason IMO it is - truly - not the only thing, but the first.
And btw. if we use the "dispersion varying smoothly with frequency"
criterion, which is weaker than calling for "broadband constant directivity"
or "broadband constant and high directivity" there are many speaker
concepts which are able to conform if only attention is payed to it during
design:
In that respect a carefully designed fullrange (especially FAST) concept
(even using a single driver) can outperform a 2-Way where no attention
has been payed to dispersion patterns matching at crossover frequency ...
If we accept that there are frequency ranges which are more critical
in making a sonic picture of the scene for us human beings,
it should become clear that polar dispersion and such things
cannot be discussed in terms of counting small wiggles in a plot above
10 Khz ...
Kind Regards
aspects of quality.
But having the polar dispersion smoothly varying with freqency
makes tonal balance and imaging more stable when varying the
listening postition.
It also yields consistent spectral fingerprints of reflected sound coming
from different directions of the room and thereby makes the speaker
less identifyable as a sound source having its own location and
characteristic. It simply helps hiding the speaker behind the music.
That should at least be an agreed goal ...
As you used the TV allegory: What is a perfect TV good for, when color
and contrast are only stable within a viewing angle of +-5 degrees and
a room is needed which has to be enlighted in a special way to make the
TV work ?
To me dispersion pattern varying smoothly with frequency is something
like an "admission ticket" for sound quality being more reproducible
under different listening conditions.
And for that reason IMO it is - truly - not the only thing, but the first.
And btw. if we use the "dispersion varying smoothly with frequency"
criterion, which is weaker than calling for "broadband constant directivity"
or "broadband constant and high directivity" there are many speaker
concepts which are able to conform if only attention is payed to it during
design:
In that respect a carefully designed fullrange (especially FAST) concept
(even using a single driver) can outperform a 2-Way where no attention
has been payed to dispersion patterns matching at crossover frequency ...
If we accept that there are frequency ranges which are more critical
in making a sonic picture of the scene for us human beings,
it should become clear that polar dispersion and such things
cannot be discussed in terms of counting small wiggles in a plot above
10 Khz ...
Kind Regards
Last edited:
Hi Dan,
quite a while back you said it would be interesting to see my drivers response at angles out to 90deg. Well today my wife took my daughter out so I got a chance to do some measurements. Below are the plots of the MW144s running On axis, 15,30,45,60 and 90 degrees off axis. This is with both drivers running.
Note the only measurements I'm certain about the angle are on axis, 45 degrees and 90 degrees, the in between ones may be a little off, but will be close.
I was surprised that the 15 degrees measurement was virtually indistinguishable from the on axis. The 60 degrees off axis may go some way to explaining why when I had the early version of the crossover (woofers running full range) I found that they sounded much better quite a way off axis.
I also did vertical off axis at 15 30 and 45 degrees of the speaker with crossover (these ones the angle is accurate as it was easier to calculate. The 45 degree however has major reflection problems as the mic was only 36cm off the floor. This vertical polar measurement shows what I suspected. My 2nd order Bessel crossover really isn't adequate for an MTM setup, unless you have the height set just right for one listener 🙄
Also of note is that this is the first measurement I had done after tweaking by ear. I had done the crossover based on the measurements and was not happy. There was significant sillibance present which I didn't like. When I first looked at the measurement I thought wow I've overdone the cut on the high end (I basically put a 2.2ohm resistor in series with the tweeter), but when I looked closer the top end is in proportion with the bottom end, it is just the area between 1k and 2k that is out of whack. I did have a broad notch in this area but it subjectively sounded better without it (it seemed to be introducing some form of distortion). So Earl, maybe My subjectivity was preferring the more accurate after all. There are still inaccuracies, but I traded one for another. possibly I'm more sensitive to inaccuracies in the upper frequencies (though that goes against the conventional 300 - 3K)
Anyway here are the plots warts and all. (well actually they are gated, and the speakerworkshop plots which have all the measurements (since holm can only show three at a time) have been 1/16th octave smoothed to make the graph readable 😉
Measurements were at 1M. Horizontal off axis were taken by turning the stand on its axis. Vertical off axis taken by lowering the mic. Holm graph attached to show the gating.
If you hadn't guessed the really horrid looking one is the vertical 😉 I really do need to get the parts to try the 3rd order butterworth! crossing at 2K should also help (somewhat) to fill in the hole there with the 3db butterworth hump 🙂 I've also attached a pic of the speaker so you know what it is I am measuring!!
edit: incase it isn't obvious in the 2nd graph: black on axis, red 15 deg, blue 30 deg, lime 45 deg, aqua 60 deg purple 90 deg third graph the same but only to 45 degrees.
Tony.
quite a while back you said it would be interesting to see my drivers response at angles out to 90deg. Well today my wife took my daughter out so I got a chance to do some measurements. Below are the plots of the MW144s running On axis, 15,30,45,60 and 90 degrees off axis. This is with both drivers running.
Note the only measurements I'm certain about the angle are on axis, 45 degrees and 90 degrees, the in between ones may be a little off, but will be close.
I was surprised that the 15 degrees measurement was virtually indistinguishable from the on axis. The 60 degrees off axis may go some way to explaining why when I had the early version of the crossover (woofers running full range) I found that they sounded much better quite a way off axis.
I also did vertical off axis at 15 30 and 45 degrees of the speaker with crossover (these ones the angle is accurate as it was easier to calculate. The 45 degree however has major reflection problems as the mic was only 36cm off the floor. This vertical polar measurement shows what I suspected. My 2nd order Bessel crossover really isn't adequate for an MTM setup, unless you have the height set just right for one listener 🙄
Also of note is that this is the first measurement I had done after tweaking by ear. I had done the crossover based on the measurements and was not happy. There was significant sillibance present which I didn't like. When I first looked at the measurement I thought wow I've overdone the cut on the high end (I basically put a 2.2ohm resistor in series with the tweeter), but when I looked closer the top end is in proportion with the bottom end, it is just the area between 1k and 2k that is out of whack. I did have a broad notch in this area but it subjectively sounded better without it (it seemed to be introducing some form of distortion). So Earl, maybe My subjectivity was preferring the more accurate after all. There are still inaccuracies, but I traded one for another. possibly I'm more sensitive to inaccuracies in the upper frequencies (though that goes against the conventional 300 - 3K)
Anyway here are the plots warts and all. (well actually they are gated, and the speakerworkshop plots which have all the measurements (since holm can only show three at a time) have been 1/16th octave smoothed to make the graph readable 😉
Measurements were at 1M. Horizontal off axis were taken by turning the stand on its axis. Vertical off axis taken by lowering the mic. Holm graph attached to show the gating.
If you hadn't guessed the really horrid looking one is the vertical 😉 I really do need to get the parts to try the 3rd order butterworth! crossing at 2K should also help (somewhat) to fill in the hole there with the 3db butterworth hump 🙂 I've also attached a pic of the speaker so you know what it is I am measuring!!
edit: incase it isn't obvious in the 2nd graph: black on axis, red 15 deg, blue 30 deg, lime 45 deg, aqua 60 deg purple 90 deg third graph the same but only to 45 degrees.
Tony.
Attachments
Last edited:
Oliver, I couldn't agree with you more. You have made things simpler and clearer than I ever could have and not in your native tongue no less.
Tony, one thing is certain, that woofer's break up shows no signs of being hard to deal with.😀 Those big coils on small cones is starting to seem like a good idea to me again. It's funny b/c cone flex is why I bought my Morels in the first place. Had I only known how important it really was....... Their impulse looks good compared to what I've measured and that's at least partly because of its break up as well. Every time I've improved the break up performance, the impulse response improves. When crossed over that shouldn't be a problem.
Great job Tony! As far as analyzing the vertical plot and crossover interaction, someone smarter will hopefully chime in.
Dan
Tony, one thing is certain, that woofer's break up shows no signs of being hard to deal with.😀 Those big coils on small cones is starting to seem like a good idea to me again. It's funny b/c cone flex is why I bought my Morels in the first place. Had I only known how important it really was....... Their impulse looks good compared to what I've measured and that's at least partly because of its break up as well. Every time I've improved the break up performance, the impulse response improves. When crossed over that shouldn't be a problem.
Great job Tony! As far as analyzing the vertical plot and crossover interaction, someone smarter will hopefully chime in.
Dan
Soongsc, you did state it clearly, but that doesn't make your statement correct. I know you don't agree to it being the most useful, and you haven't stated a good reason why as of yet.
The reason why I believe polar response to be the first thing that needs to be correct (beyond the obvious explained by Oliver and Dr. Geddes) is because a well behaved one correlates with listener preference. The reason it correlates is darned simple to understand. It's hard to imagine why so many highly intelligent people struggle with accepting or refuting it. I see people refusing it. Acoustics is not religion.
Dan
The reason why I believe polar response to be the first thing that needs to be correct (beyond the obvious explained by Oliver and Dr. Geddes) is because a well behaved one correlates with listener preference. The reason it correlates is darned simple to understand. It's hard to imagine why so many highly intelligent people struggle with accepting or refuting it. I see people refusing it. Acoustics is not religion.
Dan
Hello Dan
Great book I am still reading mine but I have been in the CD/Harmon camp for a long time. That said I still like some non CD designs of which I have several that sound very good to me. The kicker is the best sounding of all of them is a modern CD design. And I didn't have to be blind to hear it! Imagine that😱
Rob🙂
Because I don't think any measurement is the most important measurement.
The importance of each measurement depends on the actual measured results and how they compare against the other measurements. The measurement that shows the more dominant area of improvement necessary is the most important measurement to the designer.
Going back through your previous post, I realized I might have misread the part I quoted. So I guess I should restate what I have to say: The way you describe polar response as the most important metric suggests that the speaker with the best polar response is the best performing speaker without doubt. This is far from the truth. I could design a speaker that has as good a polar response as Toole has shown, yet I could also design it so terrible that you could probably not bear listeninbg to it for more than a minute. Why, i could just take Toole's speaker and tweak the driver to have the same polar response but sound terrible.
Last edited:
What is the "degree" of accuracy you require?
What about modeling? Doesn't Speak model off-axis? Doesn't LEAP? (..and note that both models are complex with regard to driver modeling.)
Now lets look at manufactures information, don't they have on and off-axis measurements? How about horns/waveguides?
At the most basic level - how about the diameter of the driver? Particularly if we want what Toole's research optimum - i..e. "omni" horizontal radiation. How about dropping the crossover an octave below the driver's wavelength for "maximum" radiation AND using a filter that is a low order design?
Soongsc, you often make these types of claims, but can you support them with some rational evidence. You can create a speaker with a perfect polar response, matching the textbook definition of CD, but make it sound terrible? How, what would you do? If the drivers were blown, for instance, this would show up in the response. Clearly even Toole doesn't believe that its CD and nothing else, they felt it was the first priority, with many others coming after that, but being very important. Impulse response also plays an important role for them, this is clear in the book, and should be clear in the speaker designs themselves. JBL uses charge coupled capacitors in the filters of their crossovers, why would they do that if they believed that CD was the only factor that mattered? You seem to over-simplify the situation of the counter-argument in order to claim its errors.
I am firmly in the Harman/Toole/Geddes CD camp, and I now own Dr. Geddes Abbey's as a result. I've heard a lot of good speakers, these are the finest I've heard in this general price class. I've also Heard JBL's Everest II and original Everest, as well as the K2's, and these are also among the finest speakers I've ever heard. They have extraordinary measured performance, and they sound it. Soundstaging is more stable and the Illusion of the performance recreation is far better than with any other speakers I've owned or heard.
It's not like my point of reference is bad either. I've heard the B&W 801D's, the top of the line McIntosh Line Array designs, Sonus Faber Amati Homage's, and various Focal based speakers. I owned a pair of Utopia bookshelves for that matter. I thought those were the finest speakers under 6000 dollars I had ever heard, but when I added the matching center channel and went to Home theater, they just completely faltered. This wasn't to say they were perfect before hand, I just had set my standards pretty low without realizing it. They couldn't replicate realistic dynamics, I just assumed no reasonable speaker could, and if it could, it wouldn't image well or handle the softer stuff well. They imaged well, what I thought was the finest possible, but the reality was that the stability of t his image was restricted to a very small listening area. Moving my head caused the image to collapse or shift rather drastically. Then came hearing some JBL designs, and my life was forever changed. I didn't know at the time it was due to the CD design, and I was very against the concept of Horns because of the Klipsch horns I had heard and generally disliked. I took a chance on Dr. Geddes speakers based on the science behind them, and I still have not heard a speaker I like better.
I am firmly in the Harman/Toole/Geddes CD camp, and I now own Dr. Geddes Abbey's as a result. I've heard a lot of good speakers, these are the finest I've heard in this general price class. I've also Heard JBL's Everest II and original Everest, as well as the K2's, and these are also among the finest speakers I've ever heard. They have extraordinary measured performance, and they sound it. Soundstaging is more stable and the Illusion of the performance recreation is far better than with any other speakers I've owned or heard.
It's not like my point of reference is bad either. I've heard the B&W 801D's, the top of the line McIntosh Line Array designs, Sonus Faber Amati Homage's, and various Focal based speakers. I owned a pair of Utopia bookshelves for that matter. I thought those were the finest speakers under 6000 dollars I had ever heard, but when I added the matching center channel and went to Home theater, they just completely faltered. This wasn't to say they were perfect before hand, I just had set my standards pretty low without realizing it. They couldn't replicate realistic dynamics, I just assumed no reasonable speaker could, and if it could, it wouldn't image well or handle the softer stuff well. They imaged well, what I thought was the finest possible, but the reality was that the stability of t his image was restricted to a very small listening area. Moving my head caused the image to collapse or shift rather drastically. Then came hearing some JBL designs, and my life was forever changed. I didn't know at the time it was due to the CD design, and I was very against the concept of Horns because of the Klipsch horns I had heard and generally disliked. I took a chance on Dr. Geddes speakers based on the science behind them, and I still have not heard a speaker I like better.
and if thats what you took Toole's defenition of CD to be, than you have clearly misunderstood it.
Hi Dan,
this is maybe because designing for well behaved polar
response introduces restrictions to the design process.
Many designers may not want to be restricted in combining
the virtues of certain woofers/tweeters/midrange transducers
to "creative" systems of their taste.
Since designing for continouus dispersion vs. frequency
has to start at the beginning of the process.
Driver sizes, baffle sizes, crossover frequencies
everything is restricted.
No space left for exotic and sometimes misbehaved
transducers not able to play in a team.
Designing for smooth changing dispersion vs.frequency
is not "real" speakerbuilding as it was before ...
It also gets a little harder now to be ingenious.
But i think some (many) companies and individual designers
know the value of these restrictions very well already and
the development cannot be stopped.
It is up to everyones taste, whether he wants to see the
paradigm as an uncomfortable restriction or as a helping
guideline leading to more predictable and better results.
Kind Regards
Pjpoes, one could tweek the driver so that it would have crest harmonic distortion. As a matter of fact, if someone wishes to challenge me, send me a pair of speakers that meet the the ultimate polar response performance. If I cannot tweak one side to sound audibly different from the other while keeping the polar response tolerance within a 50 production pairs measured variation + allowed tolerance range, then I will pay for the speakers and the shipping cost, and keep what's left of it. If I can, then the sender takes the speakers back and be responsible for all costs involved with this challenge (including but not limited to my man-hours, shipping, tax, insurance etc.)
When I listened to the B&W 801D, I could hear where the crossover point was between the tweeter and mid range. I go to the local HiEnd show to listen to various systems every year. Could not listen to one system for more than 1 minute. I wish I had a chance to listen to the Summas.
Everyone has their own experience in listening to various systems. I have also listened to speakers in quantities that I really don't care to keep track of, and I can tell you that price has nothing to do with sound quality. The only speaker that I could listen to for longer periods of time and still enjoy were Goldmunds (those big blocks), but they were not emotionally moving in such a way that let's you feel the performer's emotion put into their performance. Everyone also have their focus on what they listen for.
I do not think I over simplify the situation, as a matter of fact, I normally have a habit structuring things in a quite complicated manner. This is why I think that the importance of measurement depends on what the results of various measurements are rather than a fixed type of measurement.
When I listened to the B&W 801D, I could hear where the crossover point was between the tweeter and mid range. I go to the local HiEnd show to listen to various systems every year. Could not listen to one system for more than 1 minute. I wish I had a chance to listen to the Summas.
Everyone has their own experience in listening to various systems. I have also listened to speakers in quantities that I really don't care to keep track of, and I can tell you that price has nothing to do with sound quality. The only speaker that I could listen to for longer periods of time and still enjoy were Goldmunds (those big blocks), but they were not emotionally moving in such a way that let's you feel the performer's emotion put into their performance. Everyone also have their focus on what they listen for.
I do not think I over simplify the situation, as a matter of fact, I normally have a habit structuring things in a quite complicated manner. This is why I think that the importance of measurement depends on what the results of various measurements are rather than a fixed type of measurement.
Last edited:
you only make that challenge because you know nobody could do that for you. I'd love to send you a pair of JBL Everest II's, since the claimed tolerance of any one speaker to the reference is within 1% or less across a series of measured parameters, and the cost of the system is quite high. I know you would be wrong, because if you created the claimed audible differences, and we could confirm through a standardized method that the sound was different, but still measured to within 1% of their speakers, I'd be shocked and amazed. As would Harman's millions of research dollars, as it would be in complete contrast to their controlled experiments.
Let me add that there are only a very small number of speakers that offer even a good approximation of CD. I know of the Everest and K2's from JBL, the Summa lineup from Geddes, though I wouldn't include the Nathan for the purpose of this claimed little experiment, and thats about it. There probably are some others that approximate it, I'm just not familiar with them. I am however familiar with the measured performance of a great deal of High end audiophile speakers, and most, even many horn designs, are CD.
Remember that CD by it's accepted definition is a flat linear response, with the key difference being that it's response is flat and linear at all angles as well, but gradually reducing in level. I believe you could go so far as to say they would be flat linear parallel lines, with the response reducing in level until reaching no output at some extreme angle. No speaker does this, they just approximate it. Some approximate it better than others. The Summa's appear to offer the best approximation of CD I've ever seen, but even they aren't perfect. The JBL Everests are less CD than even my Abbey's, but still would be a clear example of CD. The problem they have is that the multiway approach they took doesn't match directivity between the midrange/tweeter unit and the supertweeter unit. As a result CD directivity is no longer flat and linear from that point forward. The Summa fixes this by simply not extending the CD point quite as low, nor extending quite as high.
Let me add that there are only a very small number of speakers that offer even a good approximation of CD. I know of the Everest and K2's from JBL, the Summa lineup from Geddes, though I wouldn't include the Nathan for the purpose of this claimed little experiment, and thats about it. There probably are some others that approximate it, I'm just not familiar with them. I am however familiar with the measured performance of a great deal of High end audiophile speakers, and most, even many horn designs, are CD.
Remember that CD by it's accepted definition is a flat linear response, with the key difference being that it's response is flat and linear at all angles as well, but gradually reducing in level. I believe you could go so far as to say they would be flat linear parallel lines, with the response reducing in level until reaching no output at some extreme angle. No speaker does this, they just approximate it. Some approximate it better than others. The Summa's appear to offer the best approximation of CD I've ever seen, but even they aren't perfect. The JBL Everests are less CD than even my Abbey's, but still would be a clear example of CD. The problem they have is that the multiway approach they took doesn't match directivity between the midrange/tweeter unit and the supertweeter unit. As a result CD directivity is no longer flat and linear from that point forward. The Summa fixes this by simply not extending the CD point quite as low, nor extending quite as high.
Last edited:
If you are talking about these.
JBL's big, bad Mt Everest speaker system -- Engadget
I have listened to them many times at the Hi End show, they sounded very harsh to me. I think I stood in that room for 30 seconds or less. Seems to me that measurement data should show some for of diffraction and diaphragm breakup. I'd love to see the CSD of these. 1%, how many dbs whould that be?
Crest harmonic distortion is in the form of noise, it normally is not viewable from polar plots, when made random, it can be audible, yet it would be filtered out in measurements. You could also make it to occur at certain excursions, if measurements don't excite those excursions, it won't show up, when you play music to excite those excursions, it's audible.
JBL's big, bad Mt Everest speaker system -- Engadget
I have listened to them many times at the Hi End show, they sounded very harsh to me. I think I stood in that room for 30 seconds or less. Seems to me that measurement data should show some for of diffraction and diaphragm breakup. I'd love to see the CSD of these. 1%, how many dbs whould that be?
Crest harmonic distortion is in the form of noise, it normally is not viewable from polar plots, when made random, it can be audible, yet it would be filtered out in measurements. You could also make it to occur at certain excursions, if measurements don't excite those excursions, it won't show up, when you play music to excite those excursions, it's audible.
Last edited:
My key points are the collective knowledge found on DIYaudio is greater than any one person could possibly have and anyone can make a discover/observation/conclusion/design which is far past what is know at that moment.
Please recall Lee De Forest invented the triode "audion" tube yet had almost no idea how it worked and then Edwin Armstrong took that device and gave us so much clarification and application it would be difficult to create a list.
Here at DIYaudio even the self supposed great expert is but an amateur compared to the combined knowledge and experience of these many enthusiast! Everyone here should remember this before they claim to have all the answers.
=SUM
Please recall Lee De Forest invented the triode "audion" tube yet had almost no idea how it worked and then Edwin Armstrong took that device and gave us so much clarification and application it would be difficult to create a list.
Here at DIYaudio even the self supposed great expert is but an amateur compared to the combined knowledge and experience of these many enthusiast! Everyone here should remember this before they claim to have all the answers.
=SUM
It's just another form a faith-based "reasoning".
"I've found the holy-grai.. err, the one thing that matters most - as proselytiz.. err, as irreproachably researched by the one true Go.. err, Dr. "X"."
The internet has spawned a new word for this type of behavior: Fanboy. 😉 ..the general accompaniment to this is now having the "best-ever", though sometimes reluctantly admitting that previously they had the "best-ever".. well that was until they had "seen the light".
Of course have no doubt that the next "best-ever" isn't too far away. 😀
- Status
- Not open for further replies.