You disagreed with the need for a shared baffle initially yes, but then you say ideally one would start with it on the floor. Assuming you're using the same spot on the floor that seems to be more in line with using shared baffle position than randomly placed at different levels along a baffle, that's all. Or are we throwing some tweeters in the corner and some in the middle and some in between? 🙄
Edit: I do want to understand so I'll try to make it simpler for me:
What exactly are you trying to advocate for that you think your detractors (myself included) disagree with?
Last edited:
I've been suspecting that all along as well. Too many things just don't seem to add up right.
In that case if the HD, 'anything else' and a dB or two variance in response thresholds are demonstrated to be below audibility by this test then logically they should be between electronics displaying those same variances. Revise that 50 to 70+ years of audio electronic advancements rendered moot.
Time to get serious again about that 813 SE project. 🙂
Ladies & gentleman, let me introduce you to my new best friend, Mr. Talisker.
😱
In these pre-test's pre-tests (!) I positioned both tweeters and SPL matched them.
Right from the start, I was casually listening to music, and I had to stuck my ear on the drivers to know which one was playing...
Like I said numerous times -and I was 100% right- adding a common driver would only add confusion, not any sudden clearer view of the global sound or any sudden ''details'' that would be revealed and whatnot...
Also, the baffle/position. Tested at 1m, 1.5m and 2.5m distance, on-axis of course. When A/B compared, it's rather easy to spot at 1m distance. While at 2.5m it's very difficult.
Problem is: it's easy nearfield when you're switching A/B back and forth within seconds. If you don't compare both very quickly, it's a lot more difficult to spatially position each of them (without a reference that is very close in time). I sure wouldnt bet my car on a 20/20 score on that alone...
Now, the FR. At this moment, the 3fe22 is only SPL-matched to the EQd RAAL, but no EQ on it. Obviously their FRs are quite different. What surprises me, however, is how the woofer-mid blends everything (see comment above) and makes the identification difficult, even with the drivers having a different FR (EQd v.s. un-EQd).
So, Tomahack was right. I'm already shocked even if that tweeter's blindtest hasnt started yet... I will probably be able to spot them, if I focus enough, but I sure wouldnt bet on a perfect 20/20 score.
And, more importantly, I sure wouldnt bet on a round of test using a 3fe22 ...that is EQd.
So what's left now? I think a high SPL pre-test would be interesting, that I'll do later today, and a stereo test, that I won't be able to do before a while.
But if high SPL doesnt provoke effects (distortion) that helps identifying them, I see no other choice but to push the test further with the power response.
Last edited:
...while I wrote the message above, music was playing, and.... I don't know which tweeter is playing now. It gives you an idea...
Without a very close reference, a direct comparison, you can easily lose track.
So, if we go back to the midrange's test. Adding a common woofer and a tweeter would only make the midranges more difficult to spot than it was before...
You do not agree? Then prove otherwise... and good luck with that.
Without a very close reference, a direct comparison, you can easily lose track.
So, if we go back to the midrange's test. Adding a common woofer and a tweeter would only make the midranges more difficult to spot than it was before...
You do not agree? Then prove otherwise... and good luck with that.
I don't give a toss about people not giving a toss.
This new tweeter's BT just shows that I was right all along on every single points.
It just points out that the title might as well be ''from 20hz to 20khz'', as I sure don't think the lower frequencies would provide any different BT results, on the contrary.
So now, what's left, is the SPL and the power response. And I don't give much toss to the PR, so what's left is SPL.
i think adding a woofer and tweeter would make the mid test more relevent.
I also think comparing speakers in a untreated room and not hearing a difference between drivers only prove that in your untreated room you cannot distinguish between drivers. maybe in a treated room, the differences would be hearable.
I dont have the means to "prove" it.
Boah...
what for, really?
That would only pollute diyaudio with contemptuous comments that are bathed in ignorance.
We both know, you and me, how these tests are extremely relevant and
and how they reveal things that most audiophiles don't want to see or admit.
FR is king, all along the audible bandwith. Period.
and SPL is the last real, justifiable reason to choose a more expensive driver... And that's exactly why PA industry exists: to reach higher SPL, in bigger spaces.
Far behind, very very fard behind, one can choose a driver for his power response... But FR-SPL is 90%+ of the global music experience. That's it, end of story.
Tomahack,
Your 21's PA woofer would most probably be indistinguishable from my 10W7's, once EQ and SPL-matched. Like I said to you numerous time. And I think you're starting to know it, deep down. You sure wouldnt bet against that idea, would you? WOULD YOU
Your 21's PA woofer would most probably be indistinguishable from my 10W7's, once EQ and SPL-matched. Like I said to you numerous time. And I think you're starting to know it, deep down. You sure wouldnt bet against that idea, would you? WOULD YOU
Good god do you sound like an incredibly ignorant Westerner now. Just stop.
I get your style now. It's say some shite that is just so absolutely misguided and incorrect it would take a person 3 entry level college courses of material to begin to explain where you went wrong. It's exhausting. Ben Shapiro would be truly proud.
This is very rude, to say the least.
For your information, blind audio test is the only one accepted by the science:
ITU: Committed to connecting the world
AES | Audio Engineering Society
Tomahack,
Your 21's PA woofer would most probably be indistinguishable from my 10W7's, once EQ and SPL-matched. Like I said to you numerous time. And I think you're starting to know it, deep down. You sure wouldnt bet against that idea, would you? WOULD YOU
All depends on the SPL like I said numerous time. At 100dB@20Hz, no problem at all. You exceed your Xmax at that level and I'm only at 5mm of travel. 100 watts required for me, 600w for you.
Last edited:
Using a class D amp and cheap dac will certainly help mask any audible differences between speakers. Also, I would suggest trying one of these to clean up any ground noise so as to further help make sure the electronics are not obfuscating any otherwise audible speaker differences: Monster Signature Htps 7000 Mkll | eBay
That is, if one is serious about not starting out with assumptions.
That is, if one is serious about not starting out with assumptions.
Last edited:
Please explain in objective terms how a class D amp is not sufficient to conduct valid tests. Same for the DAC. Bandwidth, THD etc...
Last edited:
So here is the SPL test I did:
-Maximum possible volume (0db master volume)
-Average SPL was about 108db and reached a 114.8db peak @ 1m distance
-Whole bandwith, listening to music not tones or pink noise
Here are the tunes I used:
Avratz - Infected Mushroom
Johto 1 - Pan Sonic
Poem Of Chinese Drum - Hok-Man Yim
Time Dot - Alva Noto
Euphrates (part II) - COH
All tunes that are usually extremely demanding for a sound system, especially at high SPL, except Johto 1 that was used basically to focus on the higher frequencies.
So here are my comments:
could not reach any *audible* distortion level from either the 3fe22 or the RAAL 64-10, but at some point the woofer (and even the passive radiator) where obviously mechanically limited. Like I said, that's very very demanding music tunes.
Also, even though the 3fe22 is un-EQd therefore is having a different FR, at high SPL it makes it even more difficult to spot them.
I am *sure* that I wouldnt be able to spot an EQd 3fe22 from an EQd 64-10... UNLESS, I am not able to EQ the 3fe22 same as the 64-10 (because he couldnt reach 20khz, by example, which I doubt, but still a possibility) but even still, the differences are already much more subtle than expected...
To push the HF drivers even further, I would need both: 1) more gain 2) a highpass on the woofmid (and maybe just a more robust woodmid such as 15pr400) but 114db peak was already pretty loud for a ''normal HiFi'' environment, I would say...
-Maximum possible volume (0db master volume)
-Average SPL was about 108db and reached a 114.8db peak @ 1m distance
-Whole bandwith, listening to music not tones or pink noise
Here are the tunes I used:
Avratz - Infected Mushroom
Johto 1 - Pan Sonic
Poem Of Chinese Drum - Hok-Man Yim
Time Dot - Alva Noto
Euphrates (part II) - COH
All tunes that are usually extremely demanding for a sound system, especially at high SPL, except Johto 1 that was used basically to focus on the higher frequencies.
So here are my comments:
could not reach any *audible* distortion level from either the 3fe22 or the RAAL 64-10, but at some point the woofer (and even the passive radiator) where obviously mechanically limited. Like I said, that's very very demanding music tunes.
Also, even though the 3fe22 is un-EQd therefore is having a different FR, at high SPL it makes it even more difficult to spot them.
I am *sure* that I wouldnt be able to spot an EQd 3fe22 from an EQd 64-10... UNLESS, I am not able to EQ the 3fe22 same as the 64-10 (because he couldnt reach 20khz, by example, which I doubt, but still a possibility) but even still, the differences are already much more subtle than expected...
To push the HF drivers even further, I would need both: 1) more gain 2) a highpass on the woofmid (and maybe just a more robust woodmid such as 15pr400) but 114db peak was already pretty loud for a ''normal HiFi'' environment, I would say...
- Status
- Not open for further replies.