My favorite was the Daytons. The C was my choice with the two others on second and third place.
Weird that the Vifa didn't make it on my top three since I tend to like flat with an ever so slight lift above 10kHz.
Sucks that Dayton is rather hard to get by in EU.
And yeah, thanks X. Please do it again.
Weird that the Vifa didn't make it on my top three since I tend to like flat with an ever so slight lift above 10kHz.
Sucks that Dayton is rather hard to get by in EU.
And yeah, thanks X. Please do it again.
I voted for C.
This was mainly as I felt it had a nice warmth many of the others seemed too spitty in different regions of HF, or too hot in the presence region.
I'm happy to say I guessed F right and I hated it. What shocked me is that I didn't like B more....
What this says to me, is that I'm.not so sensitive to peaking above 10k as below it, and possibly despite the flatter response of the Vifa it may have been a certain breakup sound that put me off. G had a slightly metal sound in retrospect, which I *thought* I heard, but wasn't comfortable in my assertion. Wouldn't have believed I couldve heard that until now.
My opinion of cheap brand feel Dayton has changed. Id happily use that driver. Sadly there is something I didn't like about the vifa, and I wish I knew what.
Brilliant test, if a little bewildering for me.
This was mainly as I felt it had a nice warmth many of the others seemed too spitty in different regions of HF, or too hot in the presence region.
I'm happy to say I guessed F right and I hated it. What shocked me is that I didn't like B more....
What this says to me, is that I'm.not so sensitive to peaking above 10k as below it, and possibly despite the flatter response of the Vifa it may have been a certain breakup sound that put me off. G had a slightly metal sound in retrospect, which I *thought* I heard, but wasn't comfortable in my assertion. Wouldn't have believed I couldve heard that until now.
My opinion of cheap brand feel Dayton has changed. Id happily use that driver. Sadly there is something I didn't like about the vifa, and I wish I knew what.
Brilliant test, if a little bewildering for me.
Last edited:
C for me. Truest vocals and overtones in the bunch. I would give it 1dB more BSC though. B is bit dark and has edgy overtones, hides some info. D is more dynamic, between B & C tonally. Not a bad collection of tweeters overall.😀
Not to be terribly critical (I honestly have no dog in the fight beyond hoping that the cheaper units sound better for future budget builds) but:
0.) This is for fun, changing the goalposts after the deblinding to say "See! I told you so" is extremely poor form. It's also bad science because:
1.) We cannot be *too* confident with the data as presented. Good luck reproducing said data. Obviously we don't have the software available here to make these polls randomized a-g (heavy bias towards the top 4 entries), nor, honestly, is putting that many in the "competition" effective? Fatigue, etc are going to muddy things heavily. There's no control for listening device, either (everyone on headphones would make a good start, but even then, swing over to innerfidelity and see the wide range of different headphone responses). Assuming preference towards a flat response, a hot top end driver may modulate nicely with a sloping top end on the listeners device (and vice-versa).
2.) This is one representative sample of the driver per bin. Given the low costs of many of these drivers (which really precludes QC), I will remain suspicious about their driver-to-driver consistency. Maybe you do have a representative device, maybe you do not.
3.) Again, this was for fun. Again, don't move the goalposts.
I'm wont to be incredulous in general, however.
There are definitely lessons to be learned, but I'd really really like to see some temperance in what's being said. Too much overstatement as we presently sit.
0.) This is for fun, changing the goalposts after the deblinding to say "See! I told you so" is extremely poor form. It's also bad science because:
1.) We cannot be *too* confident with the data as presented. Good luck reproducing said data. Obviously we don't have the software available here to make these polls randomized a-g (heavy bias towards the top 4 entries), nor, honestly, is putting that many in the "competition" effective? Fatigue, etc are going to muddy things heavily. There's no control for listening device, either (everyone on headphones would make a good start, but even then, swing over to innerfidelity and see the wide range of different headphone responses). Assuming preference towards a flat response, a hot top end driver may modulate nicely with a sloping top end on the listeners device (and vice-versa).
2.) This is one representative sample of the driver per bin. Given the low costs of many of these drivers (which really precludes QC), I will remain suspicious about their driver-to-driver consistency. Maybe you do have a representative device, maybe you do not.
3.) Again, this was for fun. Again, don't move the goalposts.
I'm wont to be incredulous in general, however.
There are definitely lessons to be learned, but I'd really really like to see some temperance in what's being said. Too much overstatement as we presently sit.
I know. Been around for a while. Haha. But the scientist in me still screams out that this test is nowhere near as generalizable as we would want it to be.
🙂
(Someone has to be Sisyphus!)
🙂
(Someone has to be Sisyphus!)
That's what I forgot to mention. D did seem more dynamic. Wonder if it was the driver itself or the woofer section was a little hotter.
I'm a modest chap and I stick to my assertions, and I would be happy with that choice even if I were alone in it.
One thing I will say is in all the clips I disliked X'S room sound. But being fair, I haven't heard my own room sound, recorded and played back to me, with my current stereo.
That will be my next experiment, inspired by this. Blind active vs passive, and dome versus ribbon on my main speakers.
All.in all a brilliant experiment into our own ears, if nothing else
One thing I will say is in all the clips I disliked X'S room sound. But being fair, I haven't heard my own room sound, recorded and played back to me, with my current stereo.
That will be my next experiment, inspired by this. Blind active vs passive, and dome versus ribbon on my main speakers.
All.in all a brilliant experiment into our own ears, if nothing else
Prefered B too, and my puzzle to match letter to drivers had B,E,F right. Derfnofred 🙂 like to see some temperance therefor say result was what my gear forms for my ears and the energy i did put into the listening session.
Interesting second preferred one is a r16 version of 3FE22, this driver i like to try out add impedance linearization for both resonance and inductance and by EQ try tame the top spike. xrk971 have this driver in a r4 version, i sent him this r16 because it had striked me that the few r16 drivers i listened thru life time have some magic and here i talk of both hifi and instrumental speakers. Think comments on r16 spec would be welcome and interesting.
Thanks every one, very fun and interesting thread.
🙂 That this subjective test make me decide to buy one of the drivers, please let me do that without critism, I'm old enough - we at free diy forum - i think i can manage to extract percieved difference to other drivers on the list i already have and at this time like to put my money on this one instead of info based on what a member advise based on his subjective experience.
Interesting second preferred one is a r16 version of 3FE22, this driver i like to try out add impedance linearization for both resonance and inductance and by EQ try tame the top spike. xrk971 have this driver in a r4 version, i sent him this r16 because it had striked me that the few r16 drivers i listened thru life time have some magic and here i talk of both hifi and instrumental speakers. Think comments on r16 spec would be welcome and interesting.
Thanks every one, very fun and interesting thread.
🙂 That this subjective test make me decide to buy one of the drivers, please let me do that without critism, I'm old enough - we at free diy forum - i think i can manage to extract percieved difference to other drivers on the list i already have and at this time like to put my money on this one instead of info based on what a member advise based on his subjective experience.
Last edited:
The entire "Obviously, the TC9 gets the highest marks" and "everyone prefers a flat response" gaming. Far cry from the "listen and have fun" of the OP.
I also agree with something I think Bob Brines said one time, that dips are far less obvious than peaks in frequency response. Which would explain why E was ok and far better than F.
Also, by my own reasoning, if there is a peak inherent in a recording, or some other nasty, then a dip at the right spot can make a driver sound preferable. Perhaps this is why I didn't vote B or D, as I also only bothered to listen to the rock track, though I'm glad I limited myself. Many rock tracks seem to have a bite that I don't like on the few fullrange drivers ive heard.
Plus, it was only a fun test.
Also, by my own reasoning, if there is a peak inherent in a recording, or some other nasty, then a dip at the right spot can make a driver sound preferable. Perhaps this is why I didn't vote B or D, as I also only bothered to listen to the rock track, though I'm glad I limited myself. Many rock tracks seem to have a bite that I don't like on the few fullrange drivers ive heard.
Plus, it was only a fun test.
How is the observation that in this poll, people preferred the drivers with the flatter response, amount to changing the goal post? A flat response is well known to be what people prefer in other tests that are controlled experiments. The flattest measuring drivers here were the TC9FD and 3FE22r16 so that is why it is not a surprise they were liked.
The data I presented is absolutely repeatable. The distance of the measurement mic was checked to be within 2mm of correct position for each case. The DSP settings and gains are all recorded and can be reproduced.
The data I presented is absolutely repeatable. The distance of the measurement mic was checked to be within 2mm of correct position for each case. The DSP settings and gains are all recorded and can be reproduced.
Last edited:
D (2) and B (4) seem pretty close overall, D (2) having a slightly bigger bump in high frequencies (11-12 kHz) but if I have to pick the flattest graph I'd say B (4)
Easier to see this way? Anyway, that's what I see.
I'm still wondering why I liked the RS100-4 a little better than the RS100P-4. It might be my age and + 14 kHz sounds 😀.
Last edited:
Yes, if magnitude response is all over the place like it routinely is for full range drivers then it needs to be flattened somehow. Only EQ can do that.
Your recordings are absolutely repeatable, as I'm confident your measurement are on your drivers. That's not the issue, and I want to emphasize that I admire what you're offering and have good confidence in the quality of the work you're doing. I just find the conclusions overstated.
Questions like--
Does the order of presentation change the order of preference?
Does the selection of music change the order of preference?
Does the number of options given change the order of preference?
Does forcing someone to pick a "favorite" versus a weighted ranked list affect the data?
And that's excluding the lack of control on the playback side and the stats side of the game.
This is right out of your OP:
" Think of it almost like a wine tasting. There are no winners or losers here - just "subjective" differences and preferences. So let's try to keep the conversations civil, friendly, engaging, and open-minded. Let's not go down the parochial path of insisting one way is better or the best."
That was exactly fair.
Questions like--
Does the order of presentation change the order of preference?
Does the selection of music change the order of preference?
Does the number of options given change the order of preference?
Does forcing someone to pick a "favorite" versus a weighted ranked list affect the data?
And that's excluding the lack of control on the playback side and the stats side of the game.
This is right out of your OP:
" Think of it almost like a wine tasting. There are no winners or losers here - just "subjective" differences and preferences. So let's try to keep the conversations civil, friendly, engaging, and open-minded. Let's not go down the parochial path of insisting one way is better or the best."
That was exactly fair.
D (2) and B (4) seem pretty close overall, D (2) having a slightly bigger bump in high frequencies (11-12 kHz) but if I have to pick the flattest graph I'd say B (4)
Easier to see this way? Anyway, that's what I see.
I'm still wondering why I liked the RS100-4 a little better than the RS100P-4. It might be my age and + 14 kHz sounds 😀.
rs100p is essentially flat above 5k, but I also have trouble understanding what I heard between paper and metal version looking at graph, the 14khz/15khz can not be the difference I would say, can hardly hear that frequency if I could hear it at all LOL
Think this is good data trying to learn, IR for 3FE22r16 verse TC9FD in a previous test at xrk971 just after he received the Faital Pro driver, his dagger testbox and condition showed too. The HF spike makes it ring a lot compared TC9, my experience is that because this is a paper driver it's not as annoying sound wise as if had been a metal driver with same ringing, but I'm think large and open in this statement so please pop in if other experience is available.
All credit goes to xrk971 for the material attached, and hope in this data we all can learn and educate each other.
Attachments
- Status
- Not open for further replies.