Yes Dave, I'm aware of that. I think it was smart to put them in a FAST system, that way there is only possible to compare the mids and treble... and yes It would be better to have a decent dac instead of that laptop, but I still think the application is good enough to reveal the character and differences between the drivers.
There are at least one driver I would never buy after this test and this type of subjective direct information is helpful for me.
Do you have a different opinion?
I rightclick downloaded all and never saw views increase while doing that (also after refresh). So maybe only double clicks count???
Thanks for the stats, X and BRYTT. Interesting stuff.
Another interesting test to do would be to compare the files already posted against the same drivers EQ'ed flat. It would put an end, hopefully, to the argument that frequency response doesn't matter. If the drivers EQ'ed flat are unanimously chosen as the winners, it would indicate a clear preference for flat response. Then again, seeing some of the votes drivers are receiving here, maybe not everyone will prefer neutral.
Another interesting test to do would be to compare the files already posted against the same drivers EQ'ed flat. It would put an end, hopefully, to the argument that frequency response doesn't matter. If the drivers EQ'ed flat are unanimously chosen as the winners, it would indicate a clear preference for flat response. Then again, seeing some of the votes drivers are receiving here, maybe not everyone will prefer neutral.
The Sigtech dsp many years ago had flat respons for studio, for home use, respons was falling (from 4khz). Ipods came after so maybe now respons for home should be flat🙂
ra7,
Think will help a lot mask them EQ flat to microphone point in space, but trained ears probably still can find inherent differences and signatures.
Show here my A10.2 low Q sealed box measured at half a meter with and without EQ. At nearfield listening the EQing sounds great and running squarewave sweep reveal some nice ones here and there in sweep when EQed. Impulse response is cleaned up and so is step response, but have a look group delay the driver wrap steep timing distortion at ~1,6kHz. The timing wrap is about 1ms and this is big compared 1,6kHz period is 0,625ms see tuning fork. Is it right to assume the best drivers will react to minimum phase EQ corrections and clean timing too when frequency response is corrected or they have flat response and flat timing as a minimum phase pass band device. I guess a instrument playing a note in the timing distortion area will have its original sound changed, example it was relaxed at the studio monitor where produced to now a forward note or whatever.
As sidenote the flat EQ doesn't sound good in room only on axis, but i actual use the flat EQ and add EQ smile at HF end to spread good sound into room, but now don't sit on axis its a real 4" cone that can beam hot 🙂.
Think will help a lot mask them EQ flat to microphone point in space, but trained ears probably still can find inherent differences and signatures.
Show here my A10.2 low Q sealed box measured at half a meter with and without EQ. At nearfield listening the EQing sounds great and running squarewave sweep reveal some nice ones here and there in sweep when EQed. Impulse response is cleaned up and so is step response, but have a look group delay the driver wrap steep timing distortion at ~1,6kHz. The timing wrap is about 1ms and this is big compared 1,6kHz period is 0,625ms see tuning fork. Is it right to assume the best drivers will react to minimum phase EQ corrections and clean timing too when frequency response is corrected or they have flat response and flat timing as a minimum phase pass band device. I guess a instrument playing a note in the timing distortion area will have its original sound changed, example it was relaxed at the studio monitor where produced to now a forward note or whatever.
As sidenote the flat EQ doesn't sound good in room only on axis, but i actual use the flat EQ and add EQ smile at HF end to spread good sound into room, but now don't sit on axis its a real 4" cone that can beam hot 🙂.
Attachments
Last edited:
Third day of listening. Finally voted. Which sounded most natural? Very difficult to decide. They all sounded so different, and none seemed natural to me.
Now to eliminate which sounded most annoying first, to the least annoying last. Came up with a favourite--one of least annoyance.
Now to eliminate which sounded most annoying first, to the least annoying last. Came up with a favourite--one of least annoyance.
BYRTT,
I've done the same type of experiment, but with a twist, the bottom is crossed to a sub at 300Hz.
Excessive EQ will cause phasing problems. I suggest that using that much EQ at the top so that the speaker can be used on-axis is excessive. As you suggest a better approach is to let the driver be hot on top and EQ it at the listening chair by the use of toe-in/out. The speaker will have a better sound stage and project into the room better.
I presume that the dip at 1.6k is an artifact of cone/surround reflections. Since it is a dip, I'd leave it alone. It is probably too narrow for our ears to pick up. We are much more sensitive to peaks than dips. In general, I make no effort to EQ dips unless they are very broad.
Bob
I've done the same type of experiment, but with a twist, the bottom is crossed to a sub at 300Hz.
Excessive EQ will cause phasing problems. I suggest that using that much EQ at the top so that the speaker can be used on-axis is excessive. As you suggest a better approach is to let the driver be hot on top and EQ it at the listening chair by the use of toe-in/out. The speaker will have a better sound stage and project into the room better.
I presume that the dip at 1.6k is an artifact of cone/surround reflections. Since it is a dip, I'd leave it alone. It is probably too narrow for our ears to pick up. We are much more sensitive to peaks than dips. In general, I make no effort to EQ dips unless they are very broad.
Bob
Bob Brines,
Agree some of the road and actual inspired by your posts the EQ smile and toe-in/out to get in room uniform percieved power response, thanks that.
I have since learned to compare equalized sound in the room with not equalized sound in headphones as a reference is a good tool tweak power response in room, and at the same time noticed when i hit best alignment going in an adjoining room with door open power response there is quite good balanced too but of course nothing is forward leaning there.
Intend to look more at the group delay in full rangers, my next up is a TC9FD test and build, because looping back even a very cheap soundcard in REW gives you a strait flat zero timing line inside audio band, not a single wriggle. Those group delay high Q wriggles i have this driver 1kHz and up is relative large timing changes compared the zero line and their frequency period time and speculate could this be some the drivers perceived signature. 1kHz and up group delay doesn't seem to change much even the frequency change a lot from non EQ to EQ, it could be the cone frequency dependant realease time do not react to minimum phase correction and this i will keep and eye at in future difference drivers between.
Agree some of the road and actual inspired by your posts the EQ smile and toe-in/out to get in room uniform percieved power response, thanks that.
I have since learned to compare equalized sound in the room with not equalized sound in headphones as a reference is a good tool tweak power response in room, and at the same time noticed when i hit best alignment going in an adjoining room with door open power response there is quite good balanced too but of course nothing is forward leaning there.
Intend to look more at the group delay in full rangers, my next up is a TC9FD test and build, because looping back even a very cheap soundcard in REW gives you a strait flat zero timing line inside audio band, not a single wriggle. Those group delay high Q wriggles i have this driver 1kHz and up is relative large timing changes compared the zero line and their frequency period time and speculate could this be some the drivers perceived signature. 1kHz and up group delay doesn't seem to change much even the frequency change a lot from non EQ to EQ, it could be the cone frequency dependant realease time do not react to minimum phase correction and this i will keep and eye at in future difference drivers between.
Byrtt,
+1 on not EQ the sharp dip - general rule of thumb is to cut peaks and not fill dips or valleys unless wide, if wide do it gently with low Q value. It would be useful to see the harmonic distortion with and without EQ. You will see a sharp rise in HD at the point the large dip filling EQ is applied. The EQ you applied to reduce the HF peaks which are the source of the ringing in the impulse looks like it really helped. Nice set of measurements though and thanks for sharing.
+1 on not EQ the sharp dip - general rule of thumb is to cut peaks and not fill dips or valleys unless wide, if wide do it gently with low Q value. It would be useful to see the harmonic distortion with and without EQ. You will see a sharp rise in HD at the point the large dip filling EQ is applied. The EQ you applied to reduce the HF peaks which are the source of the ringing in the impulse looks like it really helped. Nice set of measurements though and thanks for sharing.
xrk971,
Thanks comment share HD this setup with cursor presented at same 1,7kHz point % values can then be compared, low end EQ to get deep bass from sealed box placed 1 meter from back wall adds quite some HD.
Impedance curve driver in operated sealed box but measured at opposite end of 4 meter solid core 0,5mm adds around 0,4 ohm per core raising RE and give tendency more soft spikes, 1,6kHz is seen there, and a Z linearizing network is lifted to show driver/box cooperation.
Thanks comment share HD this setup with cursor presented at same 1,7kHz point % values can then be compared, low end EQ to get deep bass from sealed box placed 1 meter from back wall adds quite some HD.
Impedance curve driver in operated sealed box but measured at opposite end of 4 meter solid core 0,5mm adds around 0,4 ohm per core raising RE and give tendency more soft spikes, 1,6kHz is seen there, and a Z linearizing network is lifted to show driver/box cooperation.
Attachments
I find it hard to visualize HD in REW because the distortion traces are not normalized. You have to click on a point of interest to get the % value. It seems that the HD goes down in the EQ'd version, but I am not sure. It is interesting that 3rd order predominates in the upper mid.
Bob
Bob
Hi BYRTT & X,
I remember reading somewhere, psychological studies reveal that people tend to choose the one appear earlier (or placed higher in the list etc). This applies to many things including menu in restaurants, goods displayed on the racks, name list for everything, and maybe more...
I think this principle more or less reflects the stats we have here.
Let's face it, it's impossible that all voters are in the same degree of seriousness to this. Most would do it casually, if they went through all clips. (I know, several members have contributed their thorough comparing methods. Very good, but I'd bet they are the minority.)
So, for many of the voters, it's very likely the case of the following situation:
A: ooh, very bright, somewhat sizzling, ouch that electric guitar...
B: ah, much mellower, so 'comfortable' (compared to the previous one), this is pretty much it
C: er..., sounds plain, I'm not quite sure....
D: I lost patience...
No offence to anyone, it's just human nature.
So this test is so interesting that not only for audio but also reveals our (human) behavior.
What do you think?
I remember reading somewhere, psychological studies reveal that people tend to choose the one appear earlier (or placed higher in the list etc). This applies to many things including menu in restaurants, goods displayed on the racks, name list for everything, and maybe more...
I think this principle more or less reflects the stats we have here.
Let's face it, it's impossible that all voters are in the same degree of seriousness to this. Most would do it casually, if they went through all clips. (I know, several members have contributed their thorough comparing methods. Very good, but I'd bet they are the minority.)
So, for many of the voters, it's very likely the case of the following situation:
A: ooh, very bright, somewhat sizzling, ouch that electric guitar...
B: ah, much mellower, so 'comfortable' (compared to the previous one), this is pretty much it
C: er..., sounds plain, I'm not quite sure....
D: I lost patience...
No offence to anyone, it's just human nature.
So this test is so interesting that not only for audio but also reveals our (human) behavior.
What do you think?
For me two of them ahead of other.
A and B.
A: bit on a bright side. Excellent drums.
B: Softer, probably linear, more mellower sound, but drums are messy.
Both have good voices.
A and B.
A: bit on a bright side. Excellent drums.
B: Softer, probably linear, more mellower sound, but drums are messy.
Both have good voices.
I tend to use female vocals as a benchmark, but I am not familiar with the singer in track 1 so I had no preconceived Idea of how she should sound. I went with what I thought probably was the most natural, for her voice (without knowing what it actually should sound like) See a problem here?
Had I been familiar with the track/vocalist, I quite possibly would have voted differently. This is also another interesting aspect. How many of us have essentially flat systems? One thing Earl Geddies challenged me on at some point was that if we listen to inaccurate for a long time that conditions us to thinking that is normal. When we hear accurate we think it sounds wrong. Over time however the accurate will win out.
Our preferences can be swayed by years of previous listening experiences which form our own perception of what is right.
Since I am one of the mods that has been given the key (after I submitted my vote and subjective preferences) I can say one thing, and that is I am VERY surprised at which drivers were the two that I ruled out almost immediately as being no good. These two I felt were not even in the race, and that it was a bit closer between the rest.
Tony.
Had I been familiar with the track/vocalist, I quite possibly would have voted differently. This is also another interesting aspect. How many of us have essentially flat systems? One thing Earl Geddies challenged me on at some point was that if we listen to inaccurate for a long time that conditions us to thinking that is normal. When we hear accurate we think it sounds wrong. Over time however the accurate will win out.
Our preferences can be swayed by years of previous listening experiences which form our own perception of what is right.
Since I am one of the mods that has been given the key (after I submitted my vote and subjective preferences) I can say one thing, and that is I am VERY surprised at which drivers were the two that I ruled out almost immediately as being no good. These two I felt were not even in the race, and that it was a bit closer between the rest.
Tony.
It's Nora Jones in the 1st clip. She has a very special & smoky voice.
Hard to say what exactly her voice should be like, despite I have one of her CD.
And about the vote, I've mentioned earlier the one with good measurement would probably sound plain (thus not welcomed) in such comparison.
Hard to say what exactly her voice should be like, despite I have one of her CD.
And about the vote, I've mentioned earlier the one with good measurement would probably sound plain (thus not welcomed) in such comparison.
Last edited:
xrk971,
Thanks for all the work involved in setting this up. It was a lot of fun and I was surprised how much variation could be heard between the different drivers.
As you have additional drivers on the way, and are considering using lossless audio for the next round of auditions, I wonder if a double-elimination tournament style approach could be used. Something like this. It would encourage comparing only two drivers against each other at a time. It might also encourage more specifics in the discussions.
Not sure what would be the best way to execute it though. You could release the entire "tournament" structure on the first day and people could complete the whole thing at their convenience. In the tournament setup I linked to above, using 10 drivers doing four A/B comparisons every two days, it would take about 10 days to get through the entire "tournament".
Or - a double-elimination tournament setup might be more trouble than it's worth. Just wanted to throw the idea out there. I think I'll try it this way myself next time just to stay focused on only two drivers at any given time.
Thanks for all the work involved in setting this up. It was a lot of fun and I was surprised how much variation could be heard between the different drivers.
As you have additional drivers on the way, and are considering using lossless audio for the next round of auditions, I wonder if a double-elimination tournament style approach could be used. Something like this. It would encourage comparing only two drivers against each other at a time. It might also encourage more specifics in the discussions.
Not sure what would be the best way to execute it though. You could release the entire "tournament" structure on the first day and people could complete the whole thing at their convenience. In the tournament setup I linked to above, using 10 drivers doing four A/B comparisons every two days, it would take about 10 days to get through the entire "tournament".
Or - a double-elimination tournament setup might be more trouble than it's worth. Just wanted to throw the idea out there. I think I'll try it this way myself next time just to stay focused on only two drivers at any given time.
Last edited:
CLS, based on my listening I'm not surprised by the rankings at all. Only surprise is A. I didn't think it would do as well as it is. Otherwise they're scoring as they sound IMO.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.