A Subjective Blind Comparison of 2in to 4in drivers - Round 3

[Xaborus]

Just ordered a 10F/8414G10! I decided on the G10 variant because-

1. Madisound put it on the "fullrange" list but put the G00 on the "midwoofer" list. Coincidence? I think not!

2. The magnet on the G10 looks &*(^%&! Sexy

3. It's newer

4. One of my biggest factors in selecting ANY speaker driver is a QTS ~.5 (dont ask)

Lol but seriously, i came across Medleys Musing's measurements. He's measured both the G10 and G00. I liked how to G10 measured more. Will it sound as good as or better than the G00? Who knows. But that magnet....mmmmm...... *gets lotion* ...brb guys..

 

[planet10]

Then suggest you show some measurement data FF85wKeN verse 10F/8424 instead of below subjective comment from a commercial dealer, its okay comment if you had your diy hat on when posted but how should we diy'ers know.

Althou my measure capability is better than X's i do not think them valid enuff tobe worthwhile posting.

Unless asked a question i post as a diyer.

In past you praised CHN70/A7.3/A7p too

I have prasied the A7.3, in particular the A7.3eN.

My comments on the CHN70eN were only wrt the TC9… it did things that made them considerably more pleasant. Saying that they were more enjoyable than a cheap constipated TV speaker is not praise.

My comments on the A7p never reached praise, always being guarded. I did not really like them out of the box, the last listen, as mid-tweeter in an A12pWen/A7PeN MTM FAST with well over 1,000 hrs on them was not unpleasant (as they were out of the box)

So you put words in my mouth.

Its a mystery to me how more than 30 years experience in the business can recommend such drivers as better than the rest or propose the A7.3 to be a studio monitor

Come listen in person. An A7.3eN is a very good performer.

Full range drivers ain't pretty perfect compared to multi-way

Yet a good one will do some things that the majority of multi-ways have no hope of of. And if you value those attributes you can live with their downsides.

data as xrk971 and all diy'ers here share are worth a million i think

You know what i think of how good & how valid XRK's data is. No substitute for actually listening to the music.

therefor suggest if that FF85wKeN is so good that you recommend below send a package to X or at least show some objective data.

Come listen… a graph will not show you how well it performs.

The reason i mentioned tat those attending diyFEST could compare FF85wKeN to 10f and express their independent thots.

dave

 

[planet10]

A member asked me to download at least the clips of a driver i am familiar with. I did that, downloading the Reference clips & all of the samples from the Alpair 7.3.

While mostly enjoyable, none of the reference clips were stellar, only the 1st giving a hint of a 3D image, and the last having had someone turn up the bass slider.

The speaker clips were a pale shadow of the reference clips, and if i had not known why i would be looking for something wrong with my hifi. It was notable that in the last clip the overwrought bass was more in line. Being mono (i believe) none of the test clips produced any image.

Edit: in clip 2 (the classical) there was a distinct "echo" in the speaker clip.

As the system fnished the XRK clips and started on regular programming (mostly direct CD rips in AIFF format) the quality level made a jump.

Playback system was MacMini (with PureMusic, SSD, & external USB music storage) FireWired into a TC Electronics 24/192 DAC, Pass ACA monobloks driving prototype dMar-Ken 7.3 with fairly fresh A7.3eN.

dave

 

[xrk971]

Just ordered a 10F/8414G10! I decided on the G10 variant because-

1. Madisound put it on the "fullrange" list but put the G00 on the "midwoofer" list. Coincidence? I think not!

2. The magnet on the G10 looks &*(^%&! Sexy

3. It's newer

4. One of my biggest factors in selecting ANY speaker driver is a QTS ~.5 (dont ask)

Lol but seriously, i came across Medleys Musing's measurements. He's measured both the G10 and G00. I liked how to G10 measured more. Will it sound as good as or better than the G00? Who knows. But that magnet....mmmmm...... *gets lotion* ...brb guys..

I am sure it's a nice driver. This is the 8414 - it has a smaller less powerful magnet and slightly higher Qts. It may actually make deeper bass easier. Let us know how it works out. Troels Graveson uses it as the mid in his wonderful 3-way Discovery speaker. Someone pointed out to me that the finish on the frame of the 8414 has sharper edges whereas it looks like they went in and smoothed out the corners on the 8424. Perhaps a bigger motor and some extra hand finishing makes it more expensive?

Anyhow, let us know how you like the sound. It certainly is priced much more competitively - being less expensive than the A7.3.

 

[mondogenerator]

I have small.issue with the testing and recordings (though caveat being I don't assert I could do better)

I disagree, there was image present. In some drivers it was more pronounced, others barely noticeable.

That is my issue with the recordings
When evaluating drivers playing mono, I want it to sound mono. Not pseudo stereo. The effect is distracting and I reckon actually attracted many votes to the strongest pseudo stereo (driver B). It is a distraction because it is not reproduction but FX.

That is why I removed B so quickly from my shortlist. Also the increased perceived ambience in that case is no indication of a better driver, only a preferred sound of mono driver in reverberant space.

So whilst well meaning, well thought out (XO etc) the implementation is full of uncertainty, and the pseudo stereo thing is a huge red herring, sorry X, but that is the largest flaw.

That being said, I love the SB and hope they live up to the sound they made in your room (even taking into account some pseudo stereo nonsense)

 

[xrk971]

I have small.issue with the testing and recordings (though caveat being I don't assert I could do better)

I disagree, there was image present. In some drivers it was more pronounced, others barely noticeable.

That is my issue with the recordings
When evaluating drivers playing mono, I want it to sound mono. Not pseudo stereo. The effect is distracting and I reckon actually attracted many votes to the strongest pseudo stereo (driver B). It is a distraction because it is not reproduction but FX.

That is why I removed B so quickly from my shortlist. Also the increased perceived ambience in that case is no indication of a better driver, only a preferred sound of mono driver in reverberant space.

So whilst well meaning, well thought out (XO etc) the implementation is full of uncertainty, and the pseudo stereo thing is a huge red herring, sorry X, but that is the largest flaw.

That being said, I love the SB and hope they live up to the sound they made in your room (even taking into account some pseudo stereo nonsense)

The mic recording the clips, the speaker, etc were in the exact same position for all clips and drivers. Why B would have additional false or FX image is a mystery to me. I have considered mixing the tracks to mono and playing them mono and recording in mono. I think the lack of ambience may be less distracting but it may not sound enjoyable.

The test is done with a mono speaker for the simple reason that I was only provided a single driver in many cases. Stereo recording two speakers is more involved and I think the room reflections would come into the picture more - a properly treated listening room would probably have better results that are less distracting. Also, stereo imaging has a lot to do with how well balanced the left and right drivers are and a lot on the recording. I can take a stereo clip from my 10F/RS225 monitors so you can experience what the room acoustics really do - but it will sound stereo vs stereo recording a mono speaker.

Edit: I remembered that I have some stereo recordings. This is an older LR2 XO and not the latest Harsch XO (which is best).

http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full...-rs225-8-fast-ref-monitor-16.html#post4328092

But you will get sense of room ambience from clips.

 

[planet10]

Being in mono removes from the test one very important dimension of the reproduction… how well a stereo pair preserves the information, much of it subtle, that allows the illusion of stereo reproduction. Image/soundspace is lost.

dave

 

[5th element]

B: Really good, actually my favorite, but I heard some elevated midrange in the Bach piece... But in all the other songs it performed very well and was the

This was my issue too. B was actually my favourite but when auditioning the Back piece it added extra forwardness to the strings where they should have been nice and laid back. You could easily hear this if you compared driver B to the original recording.

I wonder where this inaccuracy comes from though. Clearly something in the chain that xrk is using elevates the mids slightly. This could be mic related or down to the effects the room is having.

 

[5th element]

Being in mono removes from the test one very important dimension of the reproduction… how well a stereo pair preserves the information, much of it subtle, that allows the illusion of stereo reproduction. Image/soundspace is lost.

dave

Yes it puzzles me why xrk actually made a 'stereo recording' with the zoom when in fact the original source is in mono. All this does is confuse the issue and unlike some have said there is no stereo 'image' to be preserved with a mono recording.

When I performed the test I used foobar to downmix the file into mono as the faux 'spaciousness' that the stereo recording from the zoom added was nothing more than an affect created by the room acoustic.

 

[xrk971]

Yes it puzzles me why xrk actually made a 'stereo recording' with the zoom when in fact the original source is in mono. All this does is confuse the issue and unlike some have said there is no stereo 'image' to be preserved with a mono recording.

When I performed the test I used foobar to downmix the file into mono as the faux 'spaciousness' that the stereo recording from the zoom added was nothing more than an affect created by the room acoustic.

Point taken. Next round will be all mono a mono.

Speaking of next round... I will take under advisement any sound clip suggestions for round 4.

I think we need to keep it to three and will require:

1. Female vocals maybe with piano or guitar
2. Jazz bass and piano possibly with drums
3. Hard rock or metal? Male vocals? Pop? Classical?

 

[BYRTT]

At post 282 http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full...2in-4in-drivers-round-3-a-29.html#post4420712 Xaborus linked to a video see below captured picture.

Floyd Toole with pointing finger at video timeline 8:29 says "when you do these comparisons, you do them one at a time, in monophonic, one speaker, not stereo, not multichannel"

Suggest as said in a previous post that if stereo signal is routed to the mono speaker and sound clip recorded, that the reference track we can download have same stereo signal and if example only right channel is routed to mono speaker and sound clip recorded that the reference track we can download have same right channel mono signal. Further it would be nice if download able sound clips and reference tracks are stereo tracks but with a empty left channel. This will make sure when people make compare at speakers than no acoustic comp filtering is taking place between their left and right speakers bandwidth when playing a track with exactly same audio material for L/R, and listening this way will reflect one speaker recorded/one speaker played back scheme. Now if into headphones having only a track at right ear is weird or troublesome think its not a problem on ones system find a way to route right channel to L/R headphones out.

 

[xrk971]

Some interesting stuff here about Subjectvism vs Rationalism in audio by Douglas Self. Especially section 5: the tenets of subjectivism.

The Dan Rather Approved Douglas Self Site

 

[5th element]

As testing takes time I would personally exclude any simple music, a solo female voice + instrument can sound utterly beguiling under the right circumstances but it has its inherent limitations. There's nothing wrong with including a track like that but it wont have the resolving capabilities of something else.

What you really want are tracks that allow you listen into the mix, this typically means music that covers a wide bandwidth with layered instruments and voices that's harmonically rich.

The AC/DC track was great for this, it's an older track so has inherently less compression, has drums and bass that cover the lower range, midrange and treble, has that lovely distortion guitar that excites all kinds of driver resonances right up into the lower treble and then has his voice. His voice is particularly useful here because it has that 'brilliance' effect on it that accentuates the airiness to his voice and as a result allows you to listen to the treble balance too. If you'd included the chorus too you'd have added in more dynamics and a number of layered voices.

As pieces go this is a very good starting point.

For classical pieces the last minute of this would be good or something similar.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fex8Up5261A

Really though I think the genre is largely irrelevant and its more the piece itself inside of the genre that matters.

Examples of what I am talking about though.

--

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8AfW3LDKKp0

3:20 and onwards.

--

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s4MlPbgMtnU

The chorus after the bridge. Starting at around 2:40.

--

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1msvUTnTrE

The climax starting at 2:48.

--

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YDbjouRlLcU

The last minute of this.

--

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ydGZpU9cirE

Parts of this. Sort of 1:40 till the end.

--

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_hQwuZPnqm4

3:10 and onwards.

--

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=erSSZ7UPvy0

From 1:05 till the end of the chorus.

--

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vj4gbky1QCU

2:00 and on.

--

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9y25snz83ms

1:00 plus of this for the entire chorus.

--

I tried to cover a reasonable number of genres there to capture a degree of what it is I am talking about by harmonically dense. A good system should be able to reproduce a dense mix with clarity, with a sense of ease and without sounding forward or fatiguing. On improperly designed systems simple music often sounds okay, but complex stuff does not.

As an example the AC/DC track sounded great on the 10F in your test whereas on others it melted your ears off. Alicia keys would have gone down far better on those drivers

 

[Bare]

Little point in exploring the edges of Good Recordings.
Put on a PJ Harvey CD.. Any.. of hers will Do.
IF.. the system is capable, her voice is very nice indeed.
IF the setup is erm.. lacking/inept, she sounds like a Cat with a stepped on tail.

NO ambiguity whatsoever.. IMO pretty well the genuine Acid Kool Aid test.

 

[xrk971]

Thanks for the thoughtful suggestions 5e.

It's going to take some time to listen to the tips - I think I get the point about harmonically rich and wide band width. I will have to use what I have in my collection to allow use of at least CD quality as source.

 

[BYRTT]

A member asked me to download at least the clips of a driver i am familiar with. I did that, downloading the Reference clips & all of the samples from the Alpair 7.3.

While mostly enjoyable, none of the reference clips were stellar, only the 1st giving a hint of a 3D image, and the last having had someone turn up the bass slider.

The speaker clips were a pale shadow of the reference clips, and if i had not known why i would be looking for something wrong with my hifi. It was notable that in the last clip the overwrought bass was more in line. Being mono (i believe) none of the test clips produced any image.

Edit: in clip 2 (the classical) there was a distinct "echo" in the speaker clip.

As the system fnished the XRK clips and started on regular programming (mostly direct CD rips in AIFF format) the quality level made a jump.

Playback system was MacMini (with PureMusic, SSD, & external USB music storage) FireWired into a TC Electronics 24/192 DAC, Pass ACA monobloks driving prototype dMar-Ken 7.3 with fairly fresh A7.3eN.

dave

Suggest do the exercise above once more but listening into headphones only and suggest before compare to reference track that in a editor take right channel and over write left channel with right channel, this will ensure the compare to recorded sound clip is right channel only replayed in monophonic.

Also try record your own A7.3eN right channel from 0,5 meter distance and remember mute left channel, then listen into headphones and think you get a shock when compare to original track and remember this original track is actual being a real stereo signal track unless you edit it.

yes download able reference tracks was downgraded to 320kbit because of file size limit but equal to recorded sound clips resolution, but probably played back to speaker in full resolution when sound clip was recorded.

Other facts than complaints and a bottom line telling X hey my system is better than yours, remind me to point below onto OPC comment at round one http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/full...in-5in-full-range-drivers-25.html#post4249709.

Also the fact that as reference monitor you choose playback the comparison tracks at a ringing speaker as the un treated A7.3 plot below shows could influence and make double the ringing. Okay yours is eN and can be EQ and or DSP'ed, but my experience from A10.2 is that the metal cone reacts to frq flattening when being EQ'ed and or DSP'ed but ringing scheme mostly continues.

 

[xrk971]

Byrtt,
Yes, totally agree that A7.3 played back on A7.3 = ringing^2 (can't be good). Hence when listening to non A7.3 produced source, it will sound better. Headphones are best for listening to tracks and one should listen to some non ringing drivers (B80, SB65, etc).

 

[planet10]

Byrtt,
Yes, totally agree that A7.3 played back on A7.3 = ringing^2 (can't be good). Hence when listening to non A7.3 produced source, it will sound better. Headphones are best for listening to tracks and one should listen to some non ringing drivers (B80, SB65, etc).

Not played back on A7.3 but A7.3eN.

No headphones here. No regrets about that.

Still, it is all relative…

dave

 

[xrk971]

5e,
I just listened to the suggested tracks, I really like Rachelle Ferrell - thanks for introducing me to her music. I just got a new DAC, audio I/O unit that doubles as a headphone amp. Sounds much better than the stock laptop headphone outs. It's a behringer UCA202, which many people may sneer as junk - but check out the reviews and measurements by NwAvGuy on this unit: NwAvGuy: Behringer UCA202 Review

It's actually very good (with the right high impedance headphone) - anyhow, pleased with the performance for $30.

 

[Jay]

As an example the AC/DC track sounded great on the 10F in your test whereas on others it melted your ears off. Alicia keys would have gone down far better on those drivers

Someone (I think Mondo) mentioned that it was Mariah Carey (not Alicia keys). I'm not familiar with them, only Mariah Carey in a cassette tape when I was a boy. But I have once listened to Alicia singing the same song in my speaker system and I could hear how she was struggling with her breathing, different with the one in the clip where she sang with ease.