You should elaborate first, is it based on electric, acoustical cross or subjective reference? And that was not your first response?
"Indeed - my bad"
Yes - I changed my initial thought/text, because I was in doubt, what you actually meant
Then you responded with what I hoped for - so now we're back on track
I measure my response for each driver, so that I know that a given filter gives me the acoustical output, that I planned and hoped for. Both on and off axis.
4 order acoustical, seems to give me an even dispersion, with the drivers I have thosen.
I use a Seas Magnesium tweeter and a 5" Accuton and three SS 18W + 4 * 12" subs(multi sub).
Interestingly enough . i just found out that I cross almost exactly like the Revel Salon 2 - also with 4 order filters.
I tried both the SS 9900, Morel Supreme and now the Seas Magnum. I believe - cant prove it. But using a hard dome with a hard cone midrange, makes for at better match - than soft domes. They measure very much alike. But I find the sound to be more "clear" and "open".
Yes - I changed my initial thought/text, because I was in doubt, what you actually meant
Then you responded with what I hoped for - so now we're back on track
I use a Seas Magnesium tweeter and a 5" Accuton and three SS 18W + 4 * 12" subs(multi sub).
I tried both the SS 9900, Morel Supreme and now the Seas Magnum. I believe - cant prove it. But using a hard dome with a hard cone midrange, makes for at better match - than soft domes. They measure very much alike. But I find the sound to be more "clear" and "open".
Esplendido, but be quiet about using Accuton here, it brings out the distortion and value mafia
)Different materials sound different, as with application of those materials. Of course the subjective difference might not be large for most.
The problem with a "clean" measured result is that it's never "clean" - most of the time (in an effort to better see the linearity over several octaves) it's an averaged result.
The problem with a "clean" measured result is that it's never "clean" - most of the time (in an effort to better see the linearity over several octaves) it's an averaged result.
Ok, would you agree on reasonable waterfall
I tried to spot any difference of Visaton AL170 and a Seas ?17 (never mind the number, not at home) paper cone in same box, I failed completely. But one can always argue I'm deafYou mean colouring my Visaton AL170 black as my Seas 17?
No thanks, don't like "coloured" speakers
No, you don't need to paint your AL170 to black because it's already sounds identical to the SEAS to you. Or not?You mean colouring my Visaton AL170 black as my Seas 17?
No thanks, don't like "coloured" speakers
You are trying to compare expensive tweeters... You know what, after switching to designing amplifiers I didn't find the sound of expensive tweeters much differs to cheap ones. The electronics (especially when you mention active system) can ruin the signal more than you might have thought.
As YSDR has said, different drivers do sound different, and diaphragm material is one aspect which affects the way they sound, but a skilled designer can work around their sonic differences.
Evaluating a driver or speaker system based on the way it sounds is a subjective evaluation... But so is an evaluation of the way a plot or graph looks. Comparing two waterfall plots is inherently subjective. And this is fine. During 30 years of engineering, I and my team would often make subjective value judgments based on how a plot of data looked. So the point is that subjective judgment calls are absolutely required in evaluating any complex system, and with speakers it makes sense to weigh the question of "How does it sound?" as high as the question of "how does its plot look?"
At a more basic level, when a musician is purchasing a new instrument, he or she evaluates how the instrument sounds, and how it responds, a purely subjective process. We do not ask that they "double blind" test their subjective impressions. They simply prefer trumpet A over trumpet B, or this brand of guitar strings over that brand.
If you made a trumpet out of aluminum, to a casual listener it may sound like a trumpet. But to a trumpet player, it would not sound right at all... It is well known that small changes in brass alloy can affect the sound of brass instruments.
So I accept the premise that, in general, a metal diaphragm driver is going to sound different than a paper driver or a cloth driver or a polymer driver. It is possible that they may sound very similar, but only because skilled engineers made them sound similar.
Evaluating a driver or speaker system based on the way it sounds is a subjective evaluation... But so is an evaluation of the way a plot or graph looks. Comparing two waterfall plots is inherently subjective. And this is fine. During 30 years of engineering, I and my team would often make subjective value judgments based on how a plot of data looked. So the point is that subjective judgment calls are absolutely required in evaluating any complex system, and with speakers it makes sense to weigh the question of "How does it sound?" as high as the question of "how does its plot look?"
At a more basic level, when a musician is purchasing a new instrument, he or she evaluates how the instrument sounds, and how it responds, a purely subjective process. We do not ask that they "double blind" test their subjective impressions. They simply prefer trumpet A over trumpet B, or this brand of guitar strings over that brand.
If you made a trumpet out of aluminum, to a casual listener it may sound like a trumpet. But to a trumpet player, it would not sound right at all... It is well known that small changes in brass alloy can affect the sound of brass instruments.
So I accept the premise that, in general, a metal diaphragm driver is going to sound different than a paper driver or a cloth driver or a polymer driver. It is possible that they may sound very similar, but only because skilled engineers made them sound similar.
However, I've never understood the "sound" of metal or any other materials. If driver has a clean MLSSA and breakup been dealt with, it should sound the same.
But I guess it's too boring for most people, better to have some magic in life I suppose
Your speakers are passive or active?
Well... I wondered about this too. But after helping others and building my own active system, with a huge variety of different drivers. Then I experienced that drivers with a softer compound, tend to mask some details - they simply act less as a piston. So when I hear a Scanspeak midrange like the 15W compared to my Accuton - the sound of the SS simply sounds a little dull - not much but noticable. Of course I measured the Accuton fullrange and found it's breakup node, which I precisely compensated for in my DSP, until the driver looked very nice and well behaved. But the SS uses the soft cone material to reduce the breakup, - and therefore might sound less like a "piston" - less precise. It still sounds very nice. But when I really want detail and +/-1dB from 500hz and up - then I want to control myself, what the driver does - and not rely on some exotic material compound, to "suck" up any anwanted vibration/resonanse.
I know that one can make a speaker that is very linear with most drivers. But within around 700hz to 7Khz - only a ½dB can sometimes be heard. So you have to be precise - very precise.
I actually hear alot of changes too in the range between 100 to 500hz to - only changing 1dB. It's like this is the foundation of voices and rhythm.
I tried everything from PA drivers, to plastic, ceramics, alu, magnesium, titanium and so on. All drivers have some kind of breakup and misbehaving characteristic unicness. But if you work with it, measure it and crunch the data thoroughly - then I believe you can make some great sounding speakers out of many drivers - even the one with bad reputation
But..... When traveling around to listen, to many different speakers at both shows and at private demonstrations. I notice a thin red line. Then I started to measure - when I could and people aloved it. Again things started to paint a picture. Speakers I liked, had a very clean and linear response. Sometime bass, beneath 150hz or so, had to be dealt with, with multiple subs or a DSP(maybe both), to fully notice it. But the basics had to be in order, for a given speaker to sound nice.
Metal drivers make sense when it comes to dissipating heat too. Which should make for a more stable performance too - even though it might sound extreme. But hey - we are digging deep here - so everything counts
Magic.... hmmm. I dont believe in magic and spooky stuff. I believe in science and the power of illusion - human trickery. So - since it still, is up for debate. We simply havent found a good universal explanation - yet. Were getting close I think - awesome job by Geddes, Toole, Olive and the like.
Painting was a joke
Yeah, I know, but every joke has some reality, this or that way.
But i bet, they can be tuned for the same frequency response and they would sound different.
I'm an expat, I look at films/news with various languages. As third and fourth languages are difficult to follow, I found that directivity is more important than materials (assuming correctly made) Right now, I'm using a horn with paper diaphragm. Clear as a mountain stream and joyful as when tax return is delivered
Try 12db instead to avoid the "hardening effect". I have flipped 12 to 24 db(L-R) alot in the upper region. 12 db gives a larger soundstage also.
24 is really good below 200Hz i think.
How?
Directivity is mainly controlled by driver size and baffel shape/size, like a waveguide - to my knowledge.