according to the graphs it does have severe breakup, see the dip at 2 kHz and the damped peak at 4 kHz. If that isn't cone break-up I don't know the defenition of cone break-up anymore. At east they tried to flatten the peak of the breakup but couldn't do anything about the dip and the corresponding fase shift and timing errors. So that makes another driver wich is only usable to about 2 kHz, way too low for any 25 mm dome. It reminds me a lot of some Podszus drivers I use to have, they did the same thing. Did not sound bad fullrange, actually sounded like it had enough in it even if the response dropped like a stone at 6kHz, just like the Accuton driver. I an system they never did the anti-fatigue trick for me.
You mean like squarewave measurements ...🙂 but please go ahead and define the sound of a speaker by measurements only, you will also notice the smart guy gave his opinion on listening ..
Last edited:
My test equipment could better define the nature of the perceived sound in an ABX test than your ears ever could. For a start they aren't nearly quite as biased.
Nothing is perfect - so it's logical to choose the imperfections that bother you least. This ends where you deliberately choose something technically inferior because of the way it 'sounded'.
The true goal of HiFi is to achieve transparency. Transparency is not a sound... And subjectivism is blind to transparency.
P.S. If you low cut something you'll find the bass to be lacking - that defines the sound using science...
Nothing is perfect - so it's logical to choose the imperfections that bother you least. This ends where you deliberately choose something technically inferior because of the way it 'sounded'.
The true goal of HiFi is to achieve transparency. Transparency is not a sound... And subjectivism is blind to transparency.
P.S. If you low cut something you'll find the bass to be lacking - that defines the sound using science...
Guys, let's face it and let's be honest to our selves. The perfect loudspeaker does not exist and it never will exist either, period. You can measure a lot on loudspeaker but do we actually what to measure besides freq, fase, time delay, distortion etc. We don't. Do we actually know how to read the measurements and make use of them, we don't either. We think we do, but there is no way to take each and every variable into account when designing a loudspeaker. Compromises have to be made everywhere. The No-compromise loudspeaker simply does not exist. Name me one for example and I can tell you for sure where they have made compromises. Don't get me wrong. I'm not against measurements, quite the contrary but be very carefull with the interpretation of it, and do not strive for a perfect measuring, it simply doesn't work that way. But then again, Who Am I to believe.
So the fact is that we do not have to strive for perfect reproduction of the source, wich is simply not possible. And on the other hand, why would we when the source is never ever going to be 100 % accurate either. I work as a sound engineer and I can tell you that micophones for example are full of compromises as well. If not there would be only one perfect microphone suitable for everything there is to be recorded. It simply doesn't work that way.
You should try to build a system that forces you to listen to music, a system that makes you discover new music just because it makes it sound like musicians playing music in stead of reproducing all the details of a recording. I really don't care about the breathing of the background vocal and such (just means the microphone was to close)
A loudspeaker or complete system should be build around a fun factor. How much fun is it for you to play music on it, really, that the most important thing of all.
I have had a ghettoblaster onse wich was more capable of doing this then my "high end" system. Took me almost two years to admit his to myself, it simply couldn't be. I was just ignorant. That was the time I sold everything and started from scratch after asking myself a very serious question. What is it that I want from a system ? Do I want the best audiophile system in the world ? offcoarse I would but in the end the main answer was that I simply wanted to enjoy music, that's it, nothing more nothing less. I'm glad I did. It took me a while but now I listen to music a lot more and enjoy it a lot more while by audiophile standards the old system was better, now it's just way more enjoyable, it simply has a way higher fun factor. I'm listening to music for 24 hours a day sort of speak where I used to have enough after an hour or so. That's the highest praise and value a system can get IMHO. Offcoarse there is always room or improvement, I'm a bloody audiophile myself.
Is it really? When I said choosing the imperfections we could best tolerate in any piece of equipment I never implied that we shouldn't do it with properly conducted listening tests... Is it really as limited as 'I heard it so it must be so'?
I'm just very well acquainted with the fact that our ears are very deceptive and sometimes only hear things we want to hear.
I think test equipment is highly superior to our hearing in terms of analysing a
All I'm saying is that measurements should take priority over listening tests. After that then a decision can be made based on a test conducted so as our ears cannot deceive us. I'd much prefer to listen to an accurate system than a system that someone might have constructed with the goal of 'pleasant sound'. I like listening to music. Not to HiFi.
I'm just very well acquainted with the fact that our ears are very deceptive and sometimes only hear things we want to hear.
I think test equipment is highly superior to our hearing in terms of analysing a
All I'm saying is that measurements should take priority over listening tests. After that then a decision can be made based on a test conducted so as our ears cannot deceive us. I'd much prefer to listen to an accurate system than a system that someone might have constructed with the goal of 'pleasant sound'. I like listening to music. Not to HiFi.
I can certainly agree more to those opinions than "there is no way to define the sound of something without being subjective." As I said before there are a lot of people around here who just don't get what "hi-fi" means.
Clearly not a fan of Toole and Olive - they would ague otherwise. I would agree with them.
They get better than 95% correlation to objective measurements among a group of listeners. I can certainly buy that. The things that "we don't understand" completely are in that last 5%. A very small error IMO.
I agree, THC is a wonderful thing although we may not be talking about the same thing...
Just like I said, I do not like to listen to Hifi but to music
Don't get me wrong, I'm not looking for a "pleasant" sound. I pretty much hate systems that make everything "pleasant" I want live sound, I want musician playing the hell out of them selves. I want rock and roll when asked for, I wan't civilization when called upon. I do not want a system that makes everything sound the same and makes everything sound "pleasant" by blurring everything up. I want full scale macro and micro dynamics, I want balls and guts. That are the things that makes everything you play on it sound interesting. Clarity, dynamics, balls, body, grunt, smashing dynamics without getting shrill. That kind of stuff. Something a measurement system can not tell you. And yes my system measures almost perfect, my old one did as well, not that much different actually but the difference in sound is night and day.
Perfect measurements alone means nothing to me anymore, and I'm in the business for 35 years now
Wow! A light in the darkness!
Thanks for posting that, I was feeling pretty lonely🙁
Oh and PS: I am entitled to my opinions just like anyone else. I just do not pretend that they mean all that much. My data on the other hand is absolute and irrefutable. I'll stand by that.
Trouble is, most of what is called 'hifi', isn't - so maybe the word should be banned here ... 😉
Oh, I think they know what it means, just that they may not agree the data presented represents hi-fi. There ate just too many things not published with equipment to assist in equipment selection.
I have always thought that pro audio speakers could be remarketed by a clever person a audiophile speakersWe musician have done so for decades.