Since last year 10th july 2015, page 1, it was very clear from the start and all along.
Final xover points could be between 350-500hz and 5.5-7khz but nothing else.
Won't be listenable otherwise. And matching a tweeter and/or woofer would completely defeat the test, for obvious reasons.
Final xover points could be between 350-500hz and 5.5-7khz but nothing else.
Won't be listenable otherwise. And matching a tweeter and/or woofer would completely defeat the test, for obvious reasons.
that being said: anyone on the forum is most welcome to start his own test with a 250hz-2khz bandwith. I wish you very good luck.
Last (old) update on page 1 shows this:
FINAL Pre-selection List update:
Scan-speak 10F/8424G00
Scan-speak 12MU/4731T00
Voxativ AC-1.6
ATC SM75-150
Seas exotic F8
Fostex FF85wk
Vifa/Peerless TG9FD-10-8
Visaton Ti100
Visaton B200
Max Fidelity PR4 neo
Max Fidelity PR65 neo
Alpair 7.3eNc
Airborne FR151 paper cone version
Airborne FR151 wooden cone version
4 drivers will be used for the part 1 of this test, then we'll see which will be used for part 2.
Either 4 completely different drivers or 1st/2nd from part 1 + 2 new contenders.
The most important for now is to focus on part 1: the identification, possible or not.
FINAL Pre-selection List update:
Scan-speak 10F/8424G00
Scan-speak 12MU/4731T00
Voxativ AC-1.6
ATC SM75-150
Seas exotic F8
Fostex FF85wk
Vifa/Peerless TG9FD-10-8
Visaton Ti100
Visaton B200
Max Fidelity PR4 neo
Max Fidelity PR65 neo
Alpair 7.3eNc
Airborne FR151 paper cone version
Airborne FR151 wooden cone version
4 drivers will be used for the part 1 of this test, then we'll see which will be used for part 2.
Either 4 completely different drivers or 1st/2nd from part 1 + 2 new contenders.
The most important for now is to focus on part 1: the identification, possible or not.
the update is incomplete:
there is also
Radian PB950 with Beryllium diaphragm + short horn
on the possible contenders list
there is also
Radian PB950 with Beryllium diaphragm + short horn
on the possible contenders list
preliminary tests shows that some drivers on the list might be very very difficult to distinguish from certain others, while some might be much easier to identify, even EQd.
We'll see.
We'll see.
Is it by order of preference (from the better you liked to the last) ?
AGAIN : no difference after EQ with a metal cone vs a polypro or paper or woven cone ?
Skanings driver comes after ? (sorry to ask but I've not readed the whole thread..)
AGAIN : no difference after EQ with a metal cone vs a polypro or paper or woven cone ?
Skanings driver comes after ? (sorry to ask but I've not readed the whole thread..)
They are all fullrange by the way except for these midrange that do not qualify for the intended bandwith.
Do not qualify:
Scan-speak 12MU/4731T00 4khz max
ATC SM75-150 5khz max
Max Fidelity PR65 neo 3khz max
Do not qualify:
Scan-speak 12MU/4731T00 4khz max
ATC SM75-150 5khz max
Max Fidelity PR65 neo 3khz max
Not at all.
and that's just a pre-selection list, we probably won't test more than 50% of this list. So far, i'd say we will test between 6 and 10 drivers in total from that list. It all depends of the outcomes of part 1. If we fail to identify the drivers, well, it will stop at 4 ! 🙁
Did some tests and if crossed (steep slope) at 5.5-6khz + EQing, it can do it without problem.
In fact, the real problem is the 350-450hz region, on pretty much all drivers
Most of them can easily reproduce 200Hz and up except the PR4 Neo and SM75. All of them have Fs lower than 200Hz. Did I miss something?
Last edited:
difficult test ! A driver could be better in its Fhz range possibility (more or less wide in relation to an other driver) but not if all the test for concistency uses the same protocol : for instance 500 Hz to 2000 Hz, to putt them all in their low distorsion and XMax confort zone!)...
In relation to the Sd, XO a driver at 200 Hz or 500 Hz gives not the same subjectiv results as well (I surmise a B200 able to do the job at 200 Hz but not the ScanSpeak 10F/84...for instance).
My convinction is that détails a driver can give (micro dynamics) is not readable on a soft like REW or anyelse.... if we talk curves ! After of course there is spl volume and distorsion : so again hard to say and protocol matters a lot, I assume !
looking forward to see the further results you had. I stay on the position the source is making a difference in relation to each driver (it's also a blend and just the measurement if hrelping are not enough....but just to take away the worst drivers or combos, and even after EQ in the medium zone).
In relation to the Sd, XO a driver at 200 Hz or 500 Hz gives not the same subjectiv results as well (I surmise a B200 able to do the job at 200 Hz but not the ScanSpeak 10F/84...for instance).
My convinction is that détails a driver can give (micro dynamics) is not readable on a soft like REW or anyelse.... if we talk curves ! After of course there is spl volume and distorsion : so again hard to say and protocol matters a lot, I assume !
looking forward to see the further results you had. I stay on the position the source is making a difference in relation to each driver (it's also a blend and just the measurement if hrelping are not enough....but just to take away the worst drivers or combos, and even after EQ in the medium zone).
all i can say is during preliminary testing it was clear that some drivers would be very difficult (or maybe even impossible) to identify.
To clear things up, we will need a proper test organized AND a lot of ears 🙂
speaking of which: we'll start with a dozen participants or so, then i'll see if its worth it to get more participants.
If nobody is able to identify in a ''not-even-close'' fashion... i think everything will stop right there.
If nobody is able to identify in a ''not-even-close'' fashion... i think everything will stop right there.
as an example: knowing what i know now, i wouldnt bet a single dime on my ability to identify each of the following drivers once EQd... or even just level-matched!
Scan-speak 10F/8424G00
Visaton Ti100
Airborne FR151 paper cone version
I'm not saying they are the same, they are not. But in a blind test environment ?
i wish very good luck to participants.
Scan-speak 10F/8424G00
Visaton Ti100
Airborne FR151 paper cone version
I'm not saying they are the same, they are not. But in a blind test environment ?
i wish very good luck to participants.
As you know xrq971 made a test like that but in the full range domain at iso Sd size and iso XOs parameters if I remember (at least for the high pass ?).
It's difficult for us to share : the room, the mic, the ADC conversion are eating a lot of the quality result when sharing a reccording (see xrq971 threads which were fun and had in this limit a concistency while sometimes subjective tastes were also here: for instance metal against paper... and lol we had not no the same hifi stuffs to benchmark!)
Here we must believe you without checking, but if you give a very precise protocol (with the stuffs used), it helps a lot for sure. One thing is sure : around 700/800 Hz to the low 200 Hz is an important area which ask imho not the same qualities than in the upper 800/1000 Hz to uppr 2000 Hz range.
But it is interressant to know as all design are made with trade offs : drivers, loads, active, passive, with EQ or not, etc... !
Ah, I'm very curious about the new Yamaha mid dome : they claims the material is better than beyrilium ! But it is certainly not sourcable for the diy markett.
It's difficult for us to share : the room, the mic, the ADC conversion are eating a lot of the quality result when sharing a reccording (see xrq971 threads which were fun and had in this limit a concistency while sometimes subjective tastes were also here: for instance metal against paper... and lol we had not no the same hifi stuffs to benchmark!)
Here we must believe you without checking, but if you give a very precise protocol (with the stuffs used), it helps a lot for sure. One thing is sure : around 700/800 Hz to the low 200 Hz is an important area which ask imho not the same qualities than in the upper 800/1000 Hz to uppr 2000 Hz range.
But it is interressant to know as all design are made with trade offs : drivers, loads, active, passive, with EQ or not, etc... !
Ah, I'm very curious about the new Yamaha mid dome : they claims the material is better than beyrilium ! But it is certainly not sourcable for the diy markett.
Last edited:
Limiting EQ to 4 bands is OK in a view of the possible use of passive filters, but limiting to only +/- 6 dB is not justified, active or passive. It is very easy to build passive notch filter to -12 dB, so please set limit at no less than +/-12 dB.