Ok, but what will be the root of the change ?
How can we be sure the EQ would be accurate and ''fair'' for both drivers ?
Let's say i redo the whole test from the start but in a completely different room. Same pink noise method, etc... But in a different room. Then another different room. Then another. Let's say i obtain the exact same results.. What does that say ?
Let's say i redo the test but outdoor, in the middle of a field, with a carpet of thick foam. Same pink noise method. Let's say i obtain the same results as before. What does that say ?
It would prove you are EQ-ing the room + speakers, not much more.
The difference between drivers don't surface as much if you use the pink noise EQ in one spot.
Like I said before, step out of that sweet spot and listen. Do the different drivers still sound the same?
What would be needed is to gate the measurement before the first big reflection. EQ that curve. I like to use a frequency dependent gate (or window). But in your room and the placement you should be able to get away with just setting the gating. Get rid of the chair at the mic, because it will cause reflections.
Measure to get an IR and post the first 10 or 20 ms. That will show where the reflections are. I don't want to post an example out of my own library as that would only be confusing matters more. There should be a clear peak (though a band pass will shape the IR) and hopefully a relatively flat line afterwards, followed by some small peaks. Those peaks represent the reflections. Normally one gates the measurement before those peaks (the reflections).
As you're looking at ~370 Hz you should be able to get away with gating.
Personally I'd still prefer a frequency dependent window, but have to admit REW's frequency dependent window is a bit smoothed compared to other tools.
Most measurement suites have their own variant of a frequency dependent window. I'm used to REW as a measurement suite, though I use DRC-FIR to get my preferred frequency dependent window.
We will work with you. I'm not denying your results so far. I'm not surprised either. 🙂
'just casual talk here: if i do the gate measurement, what WOULD surprise you in the upcoming results ?
That the Dayton RS225 would still be indistinguishable from more pure midrange drivers 😀. Some drivers would still be hard to identify, no doubt. But you'd have more chance to pick out the better performers overall.
So far, objections from others were:
1. 1/3 octave RTA is too coarse;
2. The ABX type of test is wrong/defective/nondiscriminating;
3. Listening with ABX test is too short, fast switching is wrong;
4. Amplifiers used are not of the highest quality;
5. Measuring without windowing will include the room, compensating for different polar responses of midrange drivers.
6. Flat EQ is not good, it should decline with frequency, for natural and neutral sound.
My opinion:
1. 1/3 octave RTA resolution is adequate in this test, because the majority of listeners didn't find difference between the drivers.
2. Nonsense.
3. Anyone can take long listening session, ABX test procedure doesn't forbid that! JonBocani should instruct the listeners to take a longer listening sessions.
4. But they are amplifiers of good quality. If the listeners can't find difference between midrange drivers (EQ flat) with good quality amplifiers, what these expensive midranges needs to shine? The most expensive amplifier in the world, greased with snake oil?
5. Although some advocate EQing only the room response (below 500 Hz, or so), nothing is wrong with complete EQ. I did it with several different loudspeakers/rooms and never looked back.
6. Irrelevant, if the listeners can't find difference between the drivers.
1. 1/3 octave RTA is too coarse;
2. The ABX type of test is wrong/defective/nondiscriminating;
3. Listening with ABX test is too short, fast switching is wrong;
4. Amplifiers used are not of the highest quality;
5. Measuring without windowing will include the room, compensating for different polar responses of midrange drivers.
6. Flat EQ is not good, it should decline with frequency, for natural and neutral sound.
My opinion:
1. 1/3 octave RTA resolution is adequate in this test, because the majority of listeners didn't find difference between the drivers.
2. Nonsense.
3. Anyone can take long listening session, ABX test procedure doesn't forbid that! JonBocani should instruct the listeners to take a longer listening sessions.
4. But they are amplifiers of good quality. If the listeners can't find difference between midrange drivers (EQ flat) with good quality amplifiers, what these expensive midranges needs to shine? The most expensive amplifier in the world, greased with snake oil?
5. Although some advocate EQing only the room response (below 500 Hz, or so), nothing is wrong with complete EQ. I did it with several different loudspeakers/rooms and never looked back.
6. Irrelevant, if the listeners can't find difference between the drivers.
Last edited:
You can't be serious. Even if I have never heard an ncore amp, I really doubt that statement. Which amps have you A/B with the ncore, and on what speakers?
Last edited:
You will lose. Although there will be a rather large number of (different) amplifiers that will sound the same, there are appreciable number of different sounding amplifiers. Difference is small, though.
Last edited:
I'll loose ? Then make money on my back. I'm your fool. 😉
you'd be surprised how much i'd bet on that... especially since the midrange test!
I think 99% of people would NOT be able to distinguish a class A amplifier from a class D icepower, once level-matched. UNLESS there is differences in the FR, which shouldnt.
Who got the balls to make a bet ?
I'm not tryin' to make money, i just want to cover the test's costs!! 😀
Can't pick out the best performer if we're unable to identify first.
That's the whole problem.
I can hear a clear difference with my TPA3116 class D amp (barf!), DIY Firstwatt F5, 6SN7/2A3 tube amp, and Bittner 800 Class AB amp in midrange and treble. The TPA3116 is discarded, and I use the latter amps to power a stereo setup with three pairs of drivers and a sub. What is wrong with your ears, man?
To understand a speaker you have to live with it and spend many hundreds of hours to tune it to your liking. I am not done at all, but I like what I hear from my own horn based system. You can't spend a few minutes on one speaker and then move on to the next, unless your are an extremely good listener. I am not, but I can hear it after a while.
Last edited:
I organized the blind listening tests of different amplifiers, level matched. Listeners easily discriminate between the amplifiers (which were of VERY different type). But when I matched amps output impedances, guess what?
I'm deaf. 🙄
Seriously though, you DO understand the very concept of ABX testing and Psychoacoustics, do you ?
In case not, here is some useful readings:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ABX_test
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychoacoustics
OK, I'll be delighted.
But it seems to me that you didn't pay attention on these:
Just came back from Montreal last Sunday. Shame my speakers and amps weigh 150-200kg.
Last edited:
Well, to me not even the very fine F5 is good enough for midrange. I need tubes. I ended up using the F5 for JBL 15" alnico midwoofers, which is not such a terrible faith.
BTW, you should really change the title "Best Midrange..." if you are not going to get a proper horn for those Radians.
BTW, you should really change the title "Best Midrange..." if you are not going to get a proper horn for those Radians.
Last edited:
