Still missing the point...Why?
Earl....Is it ok to call you Earl, I feel like I know you well...
I think I have made my point in a clear and concise manor, albeit with a modicum of humour...After all its only audio chat on a backwater forum, hardly global warming on CNN!
So why do you insist on evading a straight answer by stating the obvious, upon which we both agree?
To repeat my statement and position....Modern test equipment and objective methodology is a key part of advancing the science of designing the equipment on which to play the "art"
Ok all good...Do you understand and agree?
Fine, I will now repeat why I disagree with your statement and position.
(1) Which measurements are in direct correlation with sound quality? (A simple bullet point list of say the top 10 will suffice.. Not an explanation of why, that's (a) your opinion (b) irrelevant to this particular debate.
(2) If one could guarantee / prove beyond any doubt that you had the complete and correct list of measurements then indeed I would agree that subjective listening tests become irrelevant.
(3) Until that list is published and peer reviewed and proven to be correct I believe that its vital to oversee the objective with the subjective i.e. use young musicians ears (not old men’s ears) to confirm or dismiss the direction of development.
(4) A system my measure perfectly within the constraints of a particular manufacturers test methods, but that does not guarantee the system sounds perfect.
So I please post your top 10 tests / measurements...That alone should be a fascinating and informative subject for us all....Rather than the old subjective Vs objective...Or my own position which as I have spelt out we need both.
Cheers
Derek (or Overkill if you don't feel able to use first names...)
Earl....Is it ok to call you Earl, I feel like I know you well...
I think I have made my point in a clear and concise manor, albeit with a modicum of humour...After all its only audio chat on a backwater forum, hardly global warming on CNN!
So why do you insist on evading a straight answer by stating the obvious, upon which we both agree?
To repeat my statement and position....Modern test equipment and objective methodology is a key part of advancing the science of designing the equipment on which to play the "art"
Ok all good...Do you understand and agree?
Fine, I will now repeat why I disagree with your statement and position.
(1) Which measurements are in direct correlation with sound quality? (A simple bullet point list of say the top 10 will suffice.. Not an explanation of why, that's (a) your opinion (b) irrelevant to this particular debate.
(2) If one could guarantee / prove beyond any doubt that you had the complete and correct list of measurements then indeed I would agree that subjective listening tests become irrelevant.
(3) Until that list is published and peer reviewed and proven to be correct I believe that its vital to oversee the objective with the subjective i.e. use young musicians ears (not old men’s ears) to confirm or dismiss the direction of development.
(4) A system my measure perfectly within the constraints of a particular manufacturers test methods, but that does not guarantee the system sounds perfect.
So I please post your top 10 tests / measurements...That alone should be a fascinating and informative subject for us all....Rather than the old subjective Vs objective...Or my own position which as I have spelt out we need both.
Cheers
Derek (or Overkill if you don't feel able to use first names...)
In this statement lay the answer I believe. One is objective ... the goal to a "correct" loudspeaker/system. The other is subjective .. whether you like the "sound" of that correct system is pure opinion. Doesn't make the objective system wrong .. it's just not for you.
Hmm, I have comment this famous Stradivarius test. I have a friend that is quite a skilled musician. He read about this test and I asked him what's his thoughts about it. Quote: If I have an instrument that respond to me. I play better, If I play better, people enjoy the sound also. Who cares about statistics when performing with an instruments that speaks to me!!
Rant off!
Peter
Rant off!
Peter
You should take a listen to Dr Floyd Toole to understand that things are moving in positive direction in regard to good sound / good measurements correlation. Much more than you think:
Dr. Floyd E. Toole - Get your musical listening right - YouTube
It starts from 1:15:00 and to the end.
If you don't know what are those measurements it doesn't mean that other people don't. There is much R&D involved in it and it costs a lot of money so why would anyone supply that expensive data to you on your request and for free ? Because of your great personality ? I don't think so
Last edited:
I can't believe how wrong you guys are about things. I basically make no money on speakers, I make virtually all of my money consulting and Lidia has a very nice position as a full Prof. I tried to stop making speakers altogether because it just wasn't worth it, but too many people convinced me that doing that would just mean that what I had done would just die. So I priced them to be attractive (to me!) and continued on. But to think that I am getting rich making speakers is just another delusion that seems to be out there.
Derek - I am not going to answer your questions because I already have. To put the onus of investigation on me is simply absurd. I do not accept it. Read the literature to the point that I have and then maybe we can talk. But for now you simply have not done enough homework to warrant my tutoring.
I usually don't mind "Earl", but in your case it seems offensive.
Peter - this is absolutely correct. It does not mater, if the musician feels it improves his playing it will. The science is beside the point. But we are not musicians we are engineers and reality does matter to us even if it doesn't to them.
I have a very good friend who is a world renowned pianist with many CDs. I pointed out the poor quality of some of his CDs to him once. He had never realized this. To him all that mattered was the performance. The reproduction was irrelevant. Its kind of the same thing in reverse now isn't it.
If you don't know what are those measurements it doesn't mean that other people don't. There is much R&D involved in it and it costs a lot of money so why would anyone supply that expensive data to you on your request and for free ? Because of your great personality ? I don't think so
Zvu - now we are on the same page! Its good to see you in this context.
The sarcasm didn't come through too well in print.
I can't believe how wrong you guys are about things. I basically make no money on speakers, I make virtually all of my money consulting and Lidia has a very nice position as a full Prof. I tried to stop making speakers altogether because it just wasn't worth it, but too many people convinced me that doing that would just mean that what I had done would just die. So I priced them to be attractive (to me!) and continued on. But to think that I am getting rich making speakers is just another delusion that seems to be out there.
We were on the same page all the time as far as i'm concerned and as I said I do value highly measurements but there were few cases when things happened that I could not explain. When you said the conditions you are testing your speakers in and when I compared it to the listening conditions it all made sense. Other than that there was nothing not to agree with you, your measurements and results. I never questioned your measurements because you put your name on it.
Last edited:
Hi Zvu,
Thanks for the link to :
Dr. Floyd E. Toole - Get your musical listening right - YouTube
Its very interesting...I have only managed to grab the last 30 minutes or so but I am already looking forward to the whole series.
Floyd is a full on genius and as he is retired from commercial design in Harman he can be honest!
I have read a lot of his papers on the problems of limited directivity / driver beaming.
Also his thoughts on the advantages of Line Source Vs point source...
He was a great inspiration to me a few years ago and started me down the path of Line Sources with ultra wide dispersion (165 degrees coverage) BMR drivers.
When located on wall to eliminate the worst of the room / speaker interface problems and combined with Earls ( sorry Dr Geddes!) distributed subs below 80Hz its a killer solution and one that Floyd mentions in your UTube link above!
He " hopes to see some commercial line sources at reasonable prices..."
That's what I am working on.
Thanks again and all the best
Derek.
Thanks for the link to :
Dr. Floyd E. Toole - Get your musical listening right - YouTube
Its very interesting...I have only managed to grab the last 30 minutes or so but I am already looking forward to the whole series.
Floyd is a full on genius and as he is retired from commercial design in Harman he can be honest!
I have read a lot of his papers on the problems of limited directivity / driver beaming.
Also his thoughts on the advantages of Line Source Vs point source...
He was a great inspiration to me a few years ago and started me down the path of Line Sources with ultra wide dispersion (165 degrees coverage) BMR drivers.
When located on wall to eliminate the worst of the room / speaker interface problems and combined with Earls ( sorry Dr Geddes!) distributed subs below 80Hz its a killer solution and one that Floyd mentions in your UTube link above!
He " hopes to see some commercial line sources at reasonable prices..."
That's what I am working on.
Thanks again and all the best
Derek.
Hi Derek,
I am under impression that Dr.Geddes has done pretty much a fair amount
of work on educating people, one just needs to be patiently reading the threads.
I wish you success and fun with wide sound coverage projects and the same
to the ones willing to try Dr. Geddes's narrow and constant directivity approach.
I'm planning to build a proper waveguide one day, will I succeed, who knows?
I want to be open minded.
To what frequency? You're using 3.5"-4" drivers, right? The BMR drivers I've played with did not materially differ from standard cones of similar diameter in their coverage.
My discussions are all over the place both here at DIY and on my website. It might take awhile to comb through it all, but I believe that the answers are all there.
Every so often someone new comes by and wants me to start all over from scratch explaining everything. It is just not feasible.
I am not sure that there are ten measurements that matter. The single most important to me is a horizontal polar map. This will separate 90% of the lazy dogs from the pack, maybe even 95%. It is virtually always the polar response that a designer compromises.
I don't measure distortion, I don't see it as relevant - one can usually tell what they need to know from a few simple looks at the design.
Toole also uses a form of polar map, but slightly different than mine - not as detailed. We both look for smooth power response and DI, but we target different levels of DI for very specific reasons (that I have discussed at length in many places.)
If we could all just get good polar map data then almost everything else would be minimal. But these are unfortunately rare, not common.
Every so often someone new comes by and wants me to start all over from scratch explaining everything. It is just not feasible.
I am not sure that there are ten measurements that matter. The single most important to me is a horizontal polar map. This will separate 90% of the lazy dogs from the pack, maybe even 95%. It is virtually always the polar response that a designer compromises.
I don't measure distortion, I don't see it as relevant - one can usually tell what they need to know from a few simple looks at the design.
Toole also uses a form of polar map, but slightly different than mine - not as detailed. We both look for smooth power response and DI, but we target different levels of DI for very specific reasons (that I have discussed at length in many places.)
If we could all just get good polar map data then almost everything else would be minimal. But these are unfortunately rare, not common.
Nema problema, I just wanted to defend the poor Stradivarius! Speakers are not instruments.
I play guitar and bass myself. I have played on a Warwick custom built bass, blimey what a sweet bass guitar. Pity the price tag is not for hobby playing. No fret buzz and no big effort needed to play clean tones, even with fretless versions…..Mmmmhhh
Peter
Size of BMR
Hi Pallas,
I have tried a lot of BMR's and to be honest most of them are worse than the equivalent priced cone ie small wide band cones.
The bigger BMR's (there are some 200mm and 250mm diameter versions) have a poor top end but sound very good crossed over to AMT or ribbons around 3Khz to 5KHz.
But that's not what I am after...I really want full range with clear life like cymbals and brass with bite!
For genuine full range two channel music, the sweet spot is the 4.5 inch Neo magnet version.
In my experience most people need 4 drivers per speaker to give enough bass. I use JRiver and boost the bottom end around 4dB at 40Hz and 5 dB at 80 Hz. This does not vary much room to room as they go on wall so most of the room issues are minimised. In fact some cut around 160Hz is often required. 90 % of the time no further Eq is required.
Personally I like 6 BMR's per side but I do like higher SPL's and more deep bass than most folks. On some recordings I gently boost (2.5 dB) the 5Khz to 10KHz band.
I have two main versions, a single roll rubber surround and a double roll silk surround version. Both are 4 Ohm and around 87.4 dB for 1 watt ( 90.4 dB for 2.83 volts) with an Sd of 67.5. Mms 6.5 g for the silk version and 7.29g for the rubber surround version.
The silk surround version is a real beauty from 150Hz up, it has the purity of the Manger but way more dynamics. All it needs a nice bass driver below 150 Hz...It makes a killer near-field studio monitor.
The rubber surround is the single best driver I have ever heard...Actually better than the Manger...The BMR really can do it all 100% raw with no top or bottom end help ( just Eq)...It simply gets louder with more drivers per side, the purity and 3D stability remain.
Of course when you exceed 75% of of the floor to ceiling height you then gain even more ie the full Line Array benefits which are particularly well suited to solving the variable SPL problems Floyd talks about in your video link.
Sorry to go on at such length and sorry to OP if this is off topic...I have never been as excited about any audio technology in my life!!
Cheers
Derek.
Hi Pallas,
I have tried a lot of BMR's and to be honest most of them are worse than the equivalent priced cone ie small wide band cones.
The bigger BMR's (there are some 200mm and 250mm diameter versions) have a poor top end but sound very good crossed over to AMT or ribbons around 3Khz to 5KHz.
But that's not what I am after...I really want full range with clear life like cymbals and brass with bite!
For genuine full range two channel music, the sweet spot is the 4.5 inch Neo magnet version.
In my experience most people need 4 drivers per speaker to give enough bass. I use JRiver and boost the bottom end around 4dB at 40Hz and 5 dB at 80 Hz. This does not vary much room to room as they go on wall so most of the room issues are minimised. In fact some cut around 160Hz is often required. 90 % of the time no further Eq is required.
Personally I like 6 BMR's per side but I do like higher SPL's and more deep bass than most folks. On some recordings I gently boost (2.5 dB) the 5Khz to 10KHz band.
I have two main versions, a single roll rubber surround and a double roll silk surround version. Both are 4 Ohm and around 87.4 dB for 1 watt ( 90.4 dB for 2.83 volts) with an Sd of 67.5. Mms 6.5 g for the silk version and 7.29g for the rubber surround version.
The silk surround version is a real beauty from 150Hz up, it has the purity of the Manger but way more dynamics. All it needs a nice bass driver below 150 Hz...It makes a killer near-field studio monitor.
The rubber surround is the single best driver I have ever heard...Actually better than the Manger...The BMR really can do it all 100% raw with no top or bottom end help ( just Eq)...It simply gets louder with more drivers per side, the purity and 3D stability remain.
Of course when you exceed 75% of of the floor to ceiling height you then gain even more ie the full Line Array benefits which are particularly well suited to solving the variable SPL problems Floyd talks about in your video link.
Sorry to go on at such length and sorry to OP if this is off topic...I have never been as excited about any audio technology in my life!!
Cheers
Derek.
Polar pattern & waterfall plots are key.
Hi Earl,
Thanks for your reply and I will check out your website again, its been too long since I had a good read, and the last time I really learned a lot ie your distributed bass / subs theory.
Of all the frequency response info I agree totally the polar graphs are the most revealing. I have difficulty measuring this accurately at home ( indoors or out doors) so when I have final production versions of my drivers I am going to spend some cash and get independent test and measure data from Christien Ellis. He has his own anechoic chamber ( and a deserted country location for out door tests) as well as state of the art software and mics. Fingers crossed the results are as good or better than my home efforts!
Overall if I had to rely on just 1 graph or measurement it would be the waterfall plot as I believe its more important to get the time domain correct than the frequency domain.
I am kind of cheating here as I take for granted the polar response...
Using the BMR's in line arrays on or in walls, results in a huge even power response which covers 160 degrees ( approx. plus / minus 80 degrees) in the horizontal plane and almost perfect 180 degree vertical axis response if you take the mid point of the array as the "source"
The benefits are massive when it comes to room to room consistency....I have demo'd the arrays in small acoustically treated studios, large reverberant rooms for orchestra's, lots of domestic rooms, offices, hotel reception areas....
Honestly its remarkable how they fill spaces so evenly with no hot spots...Folks stand up, walk about, sit down, shake their heads and say how TF have you done that!
I should have a good range of data that I can publish around Christmas if all the drivers and the bamboo cabinets are shipped from China on time.
Cheers
Derek.
Hi Earl,
Thanks for your reply and I will check out your website again, its been too long since I had a good read, and the last time I really learned a lot ie your distributed bass / subs theory.
Of all the frequency response info I agree totally the polar graphs are the most revealing. I have difficulty measuring this accurately at home ( indoors or out doors) so when I have final production versions of my drivers I am going to spend some cash and get independent test and measure data from Christien Ellis. He has his own anechoic chamber ( and a deserted country location for out door tests) as well as state of the art software and mics. Fingers crossed the results are as good or better than my home efforts!
Overall if I had to rely on just 1 graph or measurement it would be the waterfall plot as I believe its more important to get the time domain correct than the frequency domain.
I am kind of cheating here as I take for granted the polar response...
Using the BMR's in line arrays on or in walls, results in a huge even power response which covers 160 degrees ( approx. plus / minus 80 degrees) in the horizontal plane and almost perfect 180 degree vertical axis response if you take the mid point of the array as the "source"
The benefits are massive when it comes to room to room consistency....I have demo'd the arrays in small acoustically treated studios, large reverberant rooms for orchestra's, lots of domestic rooms, offices, hotel reception areas....
Honestly its remarkable how they fill spaces so evenly with no hot spots...Folks stand up, walk about, sit down, shake their heads and say how TF have you done that!
I should have a good range of data that I can publish around Christmas if all the drivers and the bamboo cabinets are shipped from China on time.
Cheers
Derek.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.