If there were more I suspect it would make getting wide agreement on a good one even worse. As a widrange enthusiast what do you think of the qualities of the Mark Audio Pluvia 7HD?
If it was independently measurable I think it would have been defined long ago. I suspect it is a quantity like PRAT that only has meaning to subjective audiophiles that use the term. The only practical way to measure it would seem to be to ask those that use the term how much is present in this speaker or that speaker. Even then it is going to vary hence the need for wide consensus rather than full consensus.
Unfortunately I have not heard any Mark Audio, for the usual reasons (metal cone, tiny Sd, needing big cab, late-comer brand, relatively expensive in China). The FR chart seems too jagged for me to jump. There is the classic JX92S by Mark's "teacher" Ted, and his new Eikona. Ruler-straight to my ears, JX92S is what I would probably recommend as a Reference fullrange driver. Amazon/aliexpress was selling a very inexpensive small ISRED whizzerless that might be more "representative" of that type. Or Aiyima whizzer (Guanyin in China) which got a rave from a member here very recently. I don't think any one brand can speak for all.
Measurng coherence: I think it is doable but the establishment has no marketing incentive to do so, in fact a disincentive if and when the impulse/transcient response of a multiway/XO is demonstrated to be lo-fi or no-fi, in the context of a forceful guitar pluck or blowing a wind instrument, up and down the scale, either real recording or a single note replayed at different pitch to tax the multiway drivers and XO differently to verify coherence.
Measuring stereo imaging is harder, but phase coherence is well-understood -- I doubt most commercial multiway speakers will beat a simple fullrange driver of comparable cost or even much less.
Measurng coherence: I think it is doable but the establishment has no marketing incentive to do so, in fact a disincentive if and when the impulse/transcient response of a multiway/XO is demonstrated to be lo-fi or no-fi, in the context of a forceful guitar pluck or blowing a wind instrument, up and down the scale, either real recording or a single note replayed at different pitch to tax the multiway drivers and XO differently to verify coherence.
Measuring stereo imaging is harder, but phase coherence is well-understood -- I doubt most commercial multiway speakers will beat a simple fullrange driver of comparable cost or even much less.
Last edited:
And measuring PRAT (if you ask me) could be a combination of uncompressed dynamic range, micro-dynamic linearity, impulse/transcient response fidelity and speed, more 3rd order harmonics than 2nd order (especially distortion), and no wow-and-flutter. Their relative weighting could be established using a panel of "experts"....
BTW I did try the AIRS 4" and 5" in the way suggested by the OP with woofer. I simply laid flat a pair of 12" Roland Cube drivers each over a stuffed, steel garbage can without XO -- dubbed LXmaxi.
BTW I did try the AIRS 4" and 5" in the way suggested by the OP with woofer. I simply laid flat a pair of 12" Roland Cube drivers each over a stuffed, steel garbage can without XO -- dubbed LXmaxi.
Last edited:
The absurd price of the Eikona drivers rules them out of consideration whatever their appeal. Why are Mark Audio (Hong Kong) drivers expensive in China? Whatever another vote against Mark Audio drivers.
The impulse/transient response of a multiway speaker has been measured many times since it is the same information as the frequency response (with magnitude and phase). It is straightforward to convolve with an input signal of whatever you like to get an output signal. What do you expect to see in the output signals that is worse in the multiway speaker compared to the fullrange speaker?
Measuring imaging requires people but is not an uncommon measurement. Phase coherence has a precise technical meaning which requires no understanding beyond knowing what it is and the pair of signals involved. Is this what you mean by phase coherence or something else?
If someone were to define PRAT in terms of independently measurable technical quantities rather than by some people stating how much PRAT is present it would cease to be useful to market hardware that is rather overpriced in terms of what it does in a technical sense.
It might be worth noting that I work from home at the moment doing various mix work and have worked in the live world (left to keep my hearing in tact for when I get older) for a few years, musician for much longer. I have regular ENT appointments and my hearing has been described by my ENT as "extremely sensitive and very good". Content above 13khz is just as important to me as any other section of the response. I've never bought into the idea that very high frequency content isn't as important. My experience says quite the opposite.
Other than that I'm not quite sure how to respond to the post here. Seems to be some strange undertones in there about things unrelated to the topic. I hear what I hear, the science backs it up, I see no reason to think much more about it.
Last edited:
It's midnight so quickly: I'd expect the distortions encapsulated in the FR/phase of common multiway vs fullrange driver to yield more distorted (including smeared) impulse/transcient response, as measured using my simple "Area-Delta" (different / common) or some other calculation (even eyeballing). Replace "imaging" with "sense of a specific distance" for a sound, commonly believed to be based in part on phase information. Compare phase nonlinearity especially abrupt change of slope i.e. max |second-derivative|. Compute "distance-smearing" max |arrival-phase-difference-of-drivers-converted-to-distance-weighted-by-amplitude| over frequency range of a sound (yes standard stuff but speaker manufacturers don't provide it).
Last edited:
I peronally think that dome and compression driver tweeters are still better, mainly in the dispertion, but the better small modern design fullrange drivers are getting closer and closer. But then i would also focus on the topend and cross higher than a typical waw if you want it right. It's still hard because of the alignment and the size of the driver. But as most dome tweeters are still 3-4" wide with their mounting plate, a similar size fullrange driver won't have more issues than those on that alignment.
And at 41x the price for the RAAL i would expect nothing less.........not sure we furthered the discussion though.....
Who's room exactly?.......is it the studio or performance space as intended by the artist?.......is it the control room acoustics as intended by the mixing engineer?...or how bout the mastering lab? Let's call this what it is........if you're room is contributing that much to the performance the listener has a choice........treat the room effectively or optimize the performance by employing a speaker system that works within the confines of sub par or worse acoustics.......which is kinda silly.......proper placement and a few unobtrusive absorption and diffraction systems are far simpler, more effective and cheaper.
Many of us have treated environment
my room apply a FRZ design.
This needs to be taken into account and shouldnt devaluate the poor off axis performance of widebanders
Psychoacoustics are a lot of fun in practice and is what drives the Apple Homepod and similar. Atmos and Spatial audio will capture the market shortly with Audiophiles aging out so quickly. When you look at the suggested placement of commercial Spatial systems, the options seem wacky at first........until
And for that measure of performance, you'd be 1000 percent correct........the smaller the diameter of the piston, the higher the freq response and off axis response.........i've accepted this for all time. But it's the BOTTOM end of the drive unit and it's limitations that concern me most these days and the reality that very few of can actually hear anything above 15khz that's useful to the enjoyment of the performance. Everything is tweeter, tweeter, highs, highs as if the area where the 95% of the content is fundamantal tones.....nope....splash some highs on that like hot sauce and it's all good......but it isn't. And even our trusted publications push this swill by exhaulting the performance of speakers with response to 30khz as the gold standard.......gold for who?......my dogs will take a piece of protein over this swill any day......and who says dogs ain't smart? LOL
So many questions...suggests that you did not understand what i was saying.
Flat on axis and smooth of axis is important. Period. For any room.
When i design speakers, they measure well at least 40 degrees of axis.
Your point about who listens 30 degrees of axis was wrong.
Instead of asking too many useless questions you should understand what i was trying to convey.
Probably few can ( me can!) but the problem is truncation of the harmonics. Apart from the mass of the moving part ( mechanical), there are many-many LP filters in a 'hifi chain', as well as HP filters, so why would you ( anyone) miss the final part by negating its correct reproduction ?
For example, the 2" Aurasound Whisper that is used in the Pluto, is showing a falling response after 15 kHz. The designer didn't feel the need to use a tweeter. I immediatly heard that something was missing. So, what to do ? Eh eh...
There's something illogical to the whole subject to begin with. No matter how perfect a given fullrange driver you have... it will still not look or act like a tweeter - it will act like a fullrange. So it can never compete fully with a tweeter, nor the other way around.
Range Rover really tried to make a car that was connecting everything from off-road, luxury, family practicality and design elegance. But it does not do everything perfect.... it's a compromise in all areas - especially in reliability.
So pick a side and go build or buy your speakers and listen to music.... because it will only be perfect for you.... and maybe only for at time... until something new, exiting or exotic comes up 😉
Range Rover really tried to make a car that was connecting everything from off-road, luxury, family practicality and design elegance. But it does not do everything perfect.... it's a compromise in all areas - especially in reliability.
So pick a side and go build or buy your speakers and listen to music.... because it will only be perfect for you.... and maybe only for at time... until something new, exiting or exotic comes up 😉
exactly the point of this thread….a reconsideration of the methodology given the advances in materials and design which are driving the advances of these compact wide range transducers…..wine lovers will go to the grave or battle to defend the corked bottle while science and physics says the sealed, lined box with no exposure to UV light is better…..some critical thinking lost there me thinks…..
Many don't require big cabs. And there are paper comp. drivers in the lineup as well. Lots to choices.
jeff
that simply isn’t true……it might be your preference given how you enjoy music and your environmental conditions……but that doesn’t validate a period. Most listeners that listen for the pure pleasure of the song and movement will find your flat on axis response quite boring and if they could have omnidirectional sound within a space would care even less on response. This thread doesn’t intent to give them that or address omnidirectional sound….it does address the benefit of a point source presentation.
Like it or not, THIS is where music enjoyment is headed with technology and the cheap availability of multiple discrete channels. Atmos is/was the first step towards a standard for discrete object based reproduction of complex music and sound. Imagine the possibilities of a long, slim horizontal array of 10-16 channels of discrete point source elements reproducing an actual soundstage?……..when compared to the 70 year old illusion of stereo? The room isn’t gonna matter much anymore……
It is a nice driver. In FH3 it will go below 40Hz. Ultimate loudness limited by the small driver size.
dave
Both have HF issues that would not let me live with them. MArk’s first gen drivers (like the A10.1) suffer from the same thing. Later drivers go a LONG way to sorting that.
dave