Closer, but no cigar. EQ will deal with FR anomalies (to an extent), but will do nothing to improve DDR (the ability to reproduce the really small stuff).
dave
Very much a case of what compromises are appropriate. The Accutons i have heard were not that good (and a decent BMW has only 1 or 2 cyclinders). No real world experience hearing the others, but i have done some boxes for others with scan bass drivers.
dave
It would have to be crossed way lower than the break-up, even if notched out it has been shown that the resonance is still there and still affecting the sound.
dave
This is how all FRs work (what i mostly work with), but in my experience the 2nd is only a broad generalization.
dave
Theonly issue i have with them is that they think amplifiers sound the same. And a speaker should never be considered seperatly from the amp driving it (and the connection in-between), it is a system.
dave
If I understand you correctly.... then you EQ'ed 4 different speakers, that were already build, which mean that you cant correct the individual drivers for their individual errors - you "simply" correct the finished product - and you do it in the listening position - right?
Well... they often do - much more than speakers. But I do agree with you that amplifiers sound different - mostly when it comes to control - IMO.
We tested a set of Dan d'agostino mono blocks on a set of Magico Q7 - then tried to hook up a Behringer EP4000 to them. The difference was not worth the huge amount of money the Dan's cost. Maybe there was a little bit of extra refinement - a tiny little bit - and they look nice. But the room was a much much bigger problem.
My Groundsound modules also has that extra power, that makes most speakers shine - without distortion or lack of refinement.
But when I refer to Toole - I never new that he talked about amplifiers - I only think of him in terms of speaker measurements and blind testing 😀
That certainly plays a role, but is down largely to amplifier output impedance, and the impedance of the loudspeaker (if the impedance is ruler flat it makes no difference) and an amplifier can certainly have too much “control” leading to lean bass.
I have read his book 3 times, it is mentioned. A wonderful tome, with lots to teach, but still some shortcomings.
dave
Nope,
A FR measurement doesn't say the whole picture, especially missing in a FR measurement is the ability of a driver to project a 3D soundstage.
Pistonic behavior is also something not visible from a FR.
An extract from Troels:
First of all, if we think measurements will tell us how a speaker sounds, we're wrong.
What measurements certainly do not tell is the sonic signature of the speaker,
because speaker cones made from polypropylene, aluminum, Kevlar, paper, glass fiber, carbon fiber, magnesium, ceramics or even diamonds all have their way of adding spices to the stew.
Last edited by a moderator:
Written by JONBOCANI
Ok.
Where to start? Let's start by the beginning, which was 1 year ago when i started that thread:
Error 404 - Forum Page Missing
Now, 100+ pages and 65,000 views later i've come to some conclusions that are... uhm... well: (in any order)
-----
So, last year the original goal was simply to organize a blind test of midrange/fullrange drivers and find the best ones. Pretty straightforward.
Then, preliminary tests showed that it WON'T be that simple. Nope.
It seemed that, once blinded, it's much harder than we thought just to identify said drivers.
So i did what i had to do: push the organization of the whole thing on a more serious/scientific level. Took time and planifications, and then more adjustements and trials, etc... Bottomline, you can read the 100+ pages to understand the whole process if you want, but basically the conclusions (so far*) are the following:
1. Auditory capacities of humans are massively overestimated by audiophiles (and probably by most humans as well)
2. Frequency Response is King.
3. Once EQ'd, a 10$ midrange can mimic a 1500$ midrange, if within mechanical/electrical limits.
4. DSP/EQ/in-room measure tools might be the best investment an audiophile can make in our era.
5. Others will have to continue spending hundreds and thousands for a natural uncorrected FR.
*so far, because for the sake of statistical validity, i'll continue with the blind test on more participants.
-----------------
Here is the results of Matchup #1
Error 404 - Forum Page Missing
That is the easiest and most forgiving drivers matchup i could find. In fact, as you can see in the thread, i had to ''cheat'' with ½ octave difference... Expected success rate was very high.
(will be updated with most recent results)
As of 27th august 2016:
45 successful trials out of 61 (74% success rate)
3 successful participants out of 6 (50% success rate)
.
Ok.
Where to start? Let's start by the beginning, which was 1 year ago when i started that thread:
Error 404 - Forum Page Missing
Now, 100+ pages and 65,000 views later i've come to some conclusions that are... uhm... well: (in any order)
-----
So, last year the original goal was simply to organize a blind test of midrange/fullrange drivers and find the best ones. Pretty straightforward.
Then, preliminary tests showed that it WON'T be that simple. Nope.
It seemed that, once blinded, it's much harder than we thought just to identify said drivers.
So i did what i had to do: push the organization of the whole thing on a more serious/scientific level. Took time and planifications, and then more adjustements and trials, etc... Bottomline, you can read the 100+ pages to understand the whole process if you want, but basically the conclusions (so far*) are the following:
1. Auditory capacities of humans are massively overestimated by audiophiles (and probably by most humans as well)
2. Frequency Response is King.
3. Once EQ'd, a 10$ midrange can mimic a 1500$ midrange, if within mechanical/electrical limits.
4. DSP/EQ/in-room measure tools might be the best investment an audiophile can make in our era.
5. Others will have to continue spending hundreds and thousands for a natural uncorrected FR.
*so far, because for the sake of statistical validity, i'll continue with the blind test on more participants.
-----------------
Here is the results of Matchup #1
Error 404 - Forum Page Missing
That is the easiest and most forgiving drivers matchup i could find. In fact, as you can see in the thread, i had to ''cheat'' with ½ octave difference... Expected success rate was very high.
(will be updated with most recent results)
As of 27th august 2016:
45 successful trials out of 61 (74% success rate)
3 successful participants out of 6 (50% success rate)
.
Last edited:
One thing to remember about EQing a full range drivers. Most of the time manufacturer posted and advertised fr response is heavily smoothed or manipulated in some way.
When you produce detailed unsmoothed fr response, you can be shocked about those sharp dips and peaks, often so close to each other. No EQ in a world can correct that.
When you produce detailed unsmoothed fr response, you can be shocked about those sharp dips and peaks, often so close to each other. No EQ in a world can correct that.
It's when the drivers in a stereo setup can project a convincing soundstage in which you can hear the instruments and voices very good separated and placed at different positions and depths.
At least with good recordings.
At least with good recordings.
Last edited:
Why should they not merely sound the same after eq
Eq takes away the original characteristics of a driver
Like the buffoons who diss pa drivers
Audiophooly
Hi if vs pa
A chap on here did a test of individual drivers and after dsp etc could not tell the difference but got slated
A wavelength is a wavelength
No, eq only equalises the FR.
What about cone profiles, what do they add to the soup? What does the bowl shape add? Or the straight sided cone? Small dust cap? Large dust cap? Soft or hard? Inverted dust cap? Phase plug?
Sb acoustics did a revision on the sb17nrx driver with an apparent larger dust cap and maybe some other features, and what happened to the sound?
Sb acoustics did a revision on the sb17nrx driver with an apparent larger dust cap and maybe some other features, and what happened to the sound?
You'll get no argument from me on that one.
Yep, done correctly it can.
For example I have a $500 (cdn) pair of Cambridge Audio speakers sitting in my closet gathering dust as I much prefer both the measured and audible quality of a $200 pair of Dayton Audios.
But it is also very important to understand that price does not provide a good measure of quality. As you climb up through the price of "audiophile" gear you are also getting to smaller and smaller companies. Very often the price difference is little more than dispersing roughly equal overheads across a significantly smaller number of units... and just as often you're buying a $300 amplifier with a $5,000 logo/badge on it.
Since they first showed up in home theatre, room correction devices have been a real boon to the audio industry. While there is no doubt of their benefits, we must also guard against the abuse of using DSP to mask bad engineering (eg. The Fluance AI60). Before all else, a speaker or amplifier needs to be properly designed and tested.
Money doesn't buy success, as I said above... What you end up with is a very expensive speaker graveyard and mediocre sound.
Last edited:
