Don't the treated drivers also have some kind of coating on the cone?
Most likely the difference in sensitivity was there from before and your statement of the pristine drivers having different sensitivities confirms it.
Most likely the difference in sensitivity was there from before and your statement of the pristine drivers having different sensitivities confirms it.
I'll try it on Friday, more time available to hear it properly.
At one point we should try stereo pairs of speakers recorded with a dummy head 🙂. But keeping the room out of that equation is going to be hard.
At one point we should try stereo pairs of speakers recorded with a dummy head 🙂. But keeping the room out of that equation is going to be hard.
I'm quite interested to hear others opinions, and to see which driver is which.
Who's on first?
Thank you X for putting this together.
~Gable
Who's on first?
Thank you X for putting this together.
~Gable
Detail of what is involved in the treatment process for the FF85wKeN:
1/ inspection followed by a minimum of 200 Hrs at low level
2/ measure T/S to verify they are within spec
3/ a pre-coat of thin puzzlekoat
4/ EnABL spots
5/ EnABL conformal coating of thinned gloss acrylic, 2 coats on the cone, 1 on the dust cap
6/ 2 coats ZIG 2-way glue at the junction of cone & surround on the back of the cone
7/ ductseal between magnet & basket to shape/smooth the rear exit. Also damps basket resonances
8/ measure T/S to sort drivers into pairs
1, 2, 3, 6, 7, 8 are not part of EnABL but additional measures taken to improve behaviour of driver.
dave
X kindly in clip-2 used same ACDC track as from round one and if you pick that then think its not very hard and in five minutes you can make your vote 🙂. Because of that myself did vote long ago but will now have to listen one more time after X also requested personal preference between the two.
As general sense this rounds sound clips is much closer to the reference tracks X supported us, maybe the less phase distortion 1st order XO offer compared higher orders is responsible some of that improvement and even 1st order XO have a acoustic vertical tilted lobe its no problem when recording mic is placed on design axis at close distance. So because of that will now make joke 🙂 in like to hear winners from previous five rounds into this new passive setup, any other that also perceive recorded sound clips is closer to reference this time.
I thought the same thing myself - I wondered what the 10F, TG9, TC9, B80, etc all sound like. The setup has been taken down though so would take a bit to get back together again. Some drivers would require adjustment of padding resistors to level match. I think 10F might be a simple drop in test as sensitivity is about same as FF85WK. Vzaichenko mentioned in the other thread that he thought it might be tough to tell the difference between reference and recorded. There is definitely some loss of high end with the FF85WK though as can be seen in the response graphs.
Well it seems this test was too easy as the statistics are showing a huge preference to one of the choices.
Maybe an interesting follow-up test would involve removing the frequency response variable between drivers via high resolution eq...
Thanks thoughts 🙂 don't be sorry your output in theory you very close to source meterial.
But also isn't it a good thing if the data shows a solid conclusion? We don't want to have nothing but inconclusive tests.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.