You said no, but then supported my response and then switched topics. I am just wanting an accurate system ( aka low distortion), not one that sounds good.
A very good reason to aim for higher accuracy...even if you don't like it at first, youll adapt. Still, my discussion was focused on what leads to higher accuracy in the room. You keep jumping topics since you have no win on this one. I already agree that preference exist for many.
Cant wait for your response that has nothing to do with signal accuracy in the room....☺️
Last edited:
Yes there can be a preference for distortion. That data's been shown.
In my own experience it's often heard as extra details or special effects that may be perceived in a positive way. I'm got going to get into all the flowery adjectives that audiophiles and musicians describe it.
Yes I've watched that video. And I know Earl's position for the last decade or so. I've already stated mine to him most recently:
Is what you're positing that more directive speakers are more truthful? Or better?
I discussed both this previously. In short- it remains to be seen...
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...istortion-speaker-drivers.294787/post-7094796
My last sentence for those who can't be bothered
"more research needs to be done on non-linear distortion and directivity"
Let's go back to Exploring Purifi Woofer Speaker Builds
Last edited:
Hey Jim!
I'm fortunate enough to have all three in standard 4 ohms-
PTT6.5X-NAA (R), PTT6.5X-NFC (L) and PTT 6.5M-NFA (not shown):
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...nts-purifi-and-scan-speak.390316/post-7155239
But haven't done a subjective midrange sound quality comparison. What do you propose?
I'm not trying to win, only to help you, in general I seem to be failing at that specific task.
I am not sure. I have never gotten much value from listening to drivers in isolation, but some people seem to be able to discern quite a bit from just listening to a woofer or a tweeter.
I am considering an active 3-way application with a 6.5 purifi driver and a waveguide tweeter. The 6.5 would operate from 200 to 2k, more or less... I am trying to understand the pros and cons of using the midrange driver with fiber diaphragm versus the midwoofer with aluminum diaphragm. Both look really good. I am just gathering information at this point.
I faced the same question myself and opted for the 6.5 Aluminium, a few reasons whether they help you or not. When notched the Aluminium has the most consistent overall response across all axes and the lowest distortion levels. It is more flexible if I decide to use it in a two way, and it just looks way better to me, I really can't get on with the look of the paper cone. I didn't like what happened to the Mid version higher in frequency, it gets quite a bit wilder higher up. I see consistently in peoples impressions that drivers with extra output beyond the useable bandwidth, particularly that aren't well controlled aren't preferred as much.
The mid does have the higher sensitivity and if that can be used in the overall design that is something to consider. My view was that the Aluminium was so linear that I could just pump more power into it as a mid in an active system and not really lose anything. There are some hints in Troels Purifi Tower build that there is something better about the mid version for pure midrange, but the datasheet from the Aluminium lists uncompromised midrange too
It's always nice to hear peoples impressions of the sound but the implementation matters so much in the overall result I can only imagine that the comparisons would be more apple to orange.
The mid does have the higher sensitivity and if that can be used in the overall design that is something to consider. My view was that the Aluminium was so linear that I could just pump more power into it as a mid in an active system and not really lose anything. There are some hints in Troels Purifi Tower build that there is something better about the mid version for pure midrange, but the datasheet from the Aluminium lists uncompromised midrange too
It's always nice to hear peoples impressions of the sound but the implementation matters so much in the overall result I can only imagine that the comparisons would be more apple to orange.
How can we talk about achieving accuracy in an untreated (or untreated small) room? Want to open up a new thread on accuracy?
Even on your own thread, you were the only one that thought a beaming speaker would be the key to success. The rest were trying to make you think a little harder.
I agree.
From shifu:
http://www.zaphaudio.com/evaluation.html
Written over 15 years ago, and most of it still stands today.
@jcga has with 8Ohm version he described here
https://www.diyaudio.com/community/...ifi-woofer-speaker-builds.352063/post-7017710
Hi Lars,
The new PTT4.0X04-NAC-03 have very cool bandwidth. I also noticed that the suspension kms(x) seems more linear than older PTT4.0 drivers. Is the suspension upgraded in this model?
Strange that Voice coil magazine were talking about not able to push more on the 4 inch model due to mechanical issues. The klippel measurements seems limited to relatively small range. I wonder if the suspension update is true, will it improve this regard? Or was it just an one-off issue?
Thanks!
The new PTT4.0X04-NAC-03 have very cool bandwidth. I also noticed that the suspension kms(x) seems more linear than older PTT4.0 drivers. Is the suspension upgraded in this model?
Strange that Voice coil magazine were talking about not able to push more on the 4 inch model due to mechanical issues. The klippel measurements seems limited to relatively small range. I wonder if the suspension update is true, will it improve this regard? Or was it just an one-off issue?
Thanks!
hi,
We have improved our own proprietary analyser and thus makes the Kms(x) curves more consistent than before. newer data sheet curves are therefore generally nicer. We will update all older data sheets over time.
The Klippel analyser (we have one also) seems to be challenged when resolving our very flat Bl(x) curves. In the Klippel analyser the Kms and Bl curve estimation is tightly coupled so that a wrong bl curve causes a wrong Kms curve. Our analyser is first estimating Bl(x) and then independently estimating Kms(x) all thanks to continuous use of the data from the displacement laser (Klippel analyser is not using the laser during LSI).
The new alu 4” uses the same spider but the cone assembly is from another vendor (specialised in alu cones of course). I would not expect any systematic differences from the paper version.
Note also that Kms(x) is the nonlinearity to worry the least about since it’s contribution to IMD is minimal unlike Bl(x).
cheers
Lars
We have improved our own proprietary analyser and thus makes the Kms(x) curves more consistent than before. newer data sheet curves are therefore generally nicer. We will update all older data sheets over time.
The Klippel analyser (we have one also) seems to be challenged when resolving our very flat Bl(x) curves. In the Klippel analyser the Kms and Bl curve estimation is tightly coupled so that a wrong bl curve causes a wrong Kms curve. Our analyser is first estimating Bl(x) and then independently estimating Kms(x) all thanks to continuous use of the data from the displacement laser (Klippel analyser is not using the laser during LSI).
The new alu 4” uses the same spider but the cone assembly is from another vendor (specialised in alu cones of course). I would not expect any systematic differences from the paper version.
Note also that Kms(x) is the nonlinearity to worry the least about since it’s contribution to IMD is minimal unlike Bl(x).
cheers
Lars
look nice nano speakers with a 19 or something planar, perfect for my pc with a ACAmini!
