Power compression.
If the voice coil heats too much, the resistance raise.
That is a problem with poorly ventilated design drivers.
Drastic = enough so the enclosure/system design would need to be changed.
I don't think that a Qts going from 0.37 to 0.38 would require a change of enclosure, nor a Vas of 60l to 62l...
Ultimately, a transducer is condemned to worn out someday. It can take 5 years or 100 years, but at some point any mechanical device will either fail to function entirely or wear to the point that it's initial properties are lost.
At that point, we don't call that a break-in that is completed, but the right time to change the device. ;-)
At that point, we don't call that a break-in that is completed, but the right time to change the device. ;-)
Last edited:
I have no argument with what you said, but you're still missing my point.
Jon provided so much EQ in his test as to make the final speaker almost perfectly flat regardless of the driver's natural performance. Far more equalization than most people here are capable of implementing. Particularly with passive components instead of a DSP.
Yet he implies that due to his experiment anyone who buys an expensive driver instead of a cheap one is a fool. That is a gross oversimplification of the entire driver design and selection process, and entirely misleading to the DIY community that reads these posts.
There can be major differences in drivers based on quality and cost that can still show up in the final speaker. Differences in harmonic distortion and ability to handle wide dynamic range to name just a few.
So to suggest here, on this DIY forum, that spending several hundred dollars for a midrange driver when you could buy one that it just as good for twenty dollars is a real disservice to us and needs to be challenged.
Doesn't Jon's test - if we accept the conclusions are correct - suggest that the harmonic distortion differences are not audible given music signals at moderate levels?
The nearfield position and use of EQ don't reduce harmonic distortion (besides the lower output required nearfield) do they?
The nearfield position and use of EQ don't reduce harmonic distortion (besides the lower output required nearfield) do they?
As I understand Jon's tests they revealed nothing at all about harmonic distortion or sound quality in general.
All they did was to show if you flatten out the FR to some very tight level, and restrict the pass band to the midrange, most people can't easily hear the differences among a wide variety of drivers regardless of their respective costs.
I do not believe that he determined anything about sound quality or how well people enjoyed the music. In other words, all the speakers could have sounded like crap, but it wouldn't have made any difference in what he reported as test results. It's just that they all sounded the same.
JonBocani, I came back. Let's talk about ABX test today.
As I said before, ABX listening test is extremely difficult, because the brain is comparing the sound in the memory and the sound currently listening. The sound A is altered as soon as it is put in your memory, and it is biased, and it is altered further listening to sound B.
It's completely different from comparing patient A and B in medical field.
Imagine you compare a beautiful girl in your memory and a beautiful girl in front of you. It's nonsense.
A little more correct way to perform ABX listening test is, play sample A and B until the tester fully recognize the difference consciously and confidently BEFORE the ABX test. You did not do this, and the test result is as expected, no surprise at all.
BTW, as I said, I completely agree with you that FR is by far the most important, and distinguishing the same FR speakers is very difficult like distinguishing DAC. But we can hear the difference if the test condition is above threshold.
Your claim is nothing but your ABX test condition is below threshold to distinguish the same FR speakers, and this is what everyone says.
I would say the room is the KING, and the FR is, well, princess?
As I said before, ABX listening test is extremely difficult, because the brain is comparing the sound in the memory and the sound currently listening. The sound A is altered as soon as it is put in your memory, and it is biased, and it is altered further listening to sound B.
It's completely different from comparing patient A and B in medical field.
Imagine you compare a beautiful girl in your memory and a beautiful girl in front of you. It's nonsense.
A little more correct way to perform ABX listening test is, play sample A and B until the tester fully recognize the difference consciously and confidently BEFORE the ABX test. You did not do this, and the test result is as expected, no surprise at all.
BTW, as I said, I completely agree with you that FR is by far the most important, and distinguishing the same FR speakers is very difficult like distinguishing DAC. But we can hear the difference if the test condition is above threshold.
Your claim is nothing but your ABX test condition is below threshold to distinguish the same FR speakers, and this is what everyone says.
I would say the room is the KING, and the FR is, well, princess?
Last edited:
Yep, over that bandwidth there's a good chance they would all have sounded pretty bad, music as a test is a joke, and it's on those that are taking this seriously 🙂
Jon's test is about what people can differentiate, not what they prefer, right. And yes, music with those 48dB/octave filters at those points is going to sound bad by hifi standards.
However, the drivers obviously have different harmonic distortion performance within the chosen band. And those differences did not render the drivers distinguishable (per Jon's account of the test) with music test material. Unless there is a problem with the test setup that masks HD (e.g. a very high noise floor in the room) that seems like an interesting result about what measured parameters it makes sense to prioritize. This is similar to what Toole gets at too - which measured parameters are most important to pursue.
I did already note upthread somewhere that there are documented tests from credible sources that with specific test signals differences in HD performance of midrange drivers are distinguishable (Linkwitz's results are still up on his site).
However, the drivers obviously have different harmonic distortion performance within the chosen band. And those differences did not render the drivers distinguishable (per Jon's account of the test) with music test material. Unless there is a problem with the test setup that masks HD (e.g. a very high noise floor in the room) that seems like an interesting result about what measured parameters it makes sense to prioritize. This is similar to what Toole gets at too - which measured parameters are most important to pursue.
I did already note upthread somewhere that there are documented tests from credible sources that with specific test signals differences in HD performance of midrange drivers are distinguishable (Linkwitz's results are still up on his site).
I thought it had been determined that the distortions were probably very low at the chosen SPLs?
Yeah, I noted above that distortion would be lower at moderate output which is related to / compounded by nearfield listening. Still an informative result, IMO (not least because much domestic listening actually occurs at those levels).
It would be really interesting to put a number on it with HD sweeps from the EQ-ed drivers at the test level but that's obviously not possible now.
My objection to what Jon has been posting is not his test results. Some people may find them interesting, some may not. Fine. Doesn't really matter.
My objection is his admonition to the DIY community that paying more than $20 for a driver makes you a fool. That's a gross disservice and, in fact, an insult to our intelligence and capabilities.
Most people are not capable of designing even the below average quality crossover either - in their hands even the best midrange in the world will sound bad and will be indistinguishable from the worst midrange in the world.
On the other hand, some people ARE capable of implementing adequate equalization, especially with passive components, which is more difficult than with DSP.
The moral of the story: use DSP!
I am concurring with that.
Well, try to challenge the designers of the much acclaimed Kii Audio Three - they use cheap, but good enough, midrange driver.
Last edited:
Did he say that, or did you hear that? Honest question, I thought that I'd read the whole thread and I don't remember anything that insulting from JB.
His conclusion to post #1 acknowledges that there are still factors that distinguish the drivers audibly.
Jon Bocani said:
I wouldn't dispute that the overall thrust of JB's position appears to be that cheap drivers + DSP is a more cost effective route to hifi than spending the whole budget on "better" drivers.
No level matching and no aural memory span compensation. No surprise.
Another sound quality claim with no supporting evidence.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.