a good video that makes it clear that measurements of the Sibelius actually say very little about the quality of this speaker. What matters is whether the Sibelius sound nice and natural in your home! If that is the case, you do not want to start tweeking with a dsp..Does measurements matter
The above link isn't functioning unfortunately.
TBH, it's going to depend on what's meant by whether 'measurements matter'. The potential danger with all these debates is that people often end up talking at cross-purposes. For e.g., when it's discussed, the term 'measurements' is often used as a synonym for either a specific set of results, or something relevative to a specific baseline criteria. But the reality is that 'measurements' are just that: measurements of a [in this case] loudspeaker under a specific set of conditions. Taking them is just a process, and the data they provide is a tool, no more. Assuming they're done well, what they reveal can tell you a lot about its behaviour & what it will probably sound like under those conditions: you may even be able to draw inferences to other conditions too, depending on how comprehensive they are. Even the most ardent subjectivist probably wouldn't deny that, unless they're completely ignorant about basic acoustics (no comment 😉 ). But they probably won't tell you everything either (again, how much will partly depend on how comprehensive a data set you take & how much you infer from it), especially if the actual supporting equipment & listening conditions change from the measurement conditions in ways that will alter behaviour away from what it was when the various measurements were taken.
In the same way, if we assume adhering to a fixed set of criteria is what's meant, we need to be careful about those criteria themselves, because they're usually quite generic, and don't necessarily account for the listener and what hearing damage they have. And we all have hearing damage -it starts from day one, and keeps going until we move on. So what is appropriate for one person won't necessarily be so for another. Related: level dependency. Do you listen quietly for xyz reason? If so -there's a reason bass & treble controls used to exist.
As I've said elsewhere, preference can come into this too. The original definition of 'high fidelity' was that: the closest thing to the original signal. But hi-fi is a catch all term for 'audio system' these days & has been for decades, and not everybody is necessarily aiming for that, but a sound they happen to enjoy, whether it's necessarily 'accurate' or not.
None of which is to knock 'measurements' -measuring different areas of behaviour is vital for me, when designing. But I don't pretend a given data set tells me everything either -audio is too dependent on circumstances for that.
TBH, it's going to depend on what's meant by whether 'measurements matter'. The potential danger with all these debates is that people often end up talking at cross-purposes. For e.g., when it's discussed, the term 'measurements' is often used as a synonym for either a specific set of results, or something relevative to a specific baseline criteria. But the reality is that 'measurements' are just that: measurements of a [in this case] loudspeaker under a specific set of conditions. Taking them is just a process, and the data they provide is a tool, no more. Assuming they're done well, what they reveal can tell you a lot about its behaviour & what it will probably sound like under those conditions: you may even be able to draw inferences to other conditions too, depending on how comprehensive they are. Even the most ardent subjectivist probably wouldn't deny that, unless they're completely ignorant about basic acoustics (no comment 😉 ). But they probably won't tell you everything either (again, how much will partly depend on how comprehensive a data set you take & how much you infer from it), especially if the actual supporting equipment & listening conditions change from the measurement conditions in ways that will alter behaviour away from what it was when the various measurements were taken.
In the same way, if we assume adhering to a fixed set of criteria is what's meant, we need to be careful about those criteria themselves, because they're usually quite generic, and don't necessarily account for the listener and what hearing damage they have. And we all have hearing damage -it starts from day one, and keeps going until we move on. So what is appropriate for one person won't necessarily be so for another. Related: level dependency. Do you listen quietly for xyz reason? If so -there's a reason bass & treble controls used to exist.
As I've said elsewhere, preference can come into this too. The original definition of 'high fidelity' was that: the closest thing to the original signal. But hi-fi is a catch all term for 'audio system' these days & has been for decades, and not everybody is necessarily aiming for that, but a sound they happen to enjoy, whether it's necessarily 'accurate' or not.
None of which is to knock 'measurements' -measuring different areas of behaviour is vital for me, when designing. But I don't pretend a given data set tells me everything either -audio is too dependent on circumstances for that.
Now with the right link: a interesting video that makes it clear that measurements of the Sibelius actually say very little about the quality of this speaker. What matters is whether the Sibelius sound nice and natural in your home! If that is the case, you do not want to start tweeking with a dsp..Good measurements equate to good sound?
If the sound is perfect, you dont need a dsp , true. If the sound gets better with a dsp, then use it.😉
final step in finishing the Sibelius clone. Soon I will replace the longhair wool with Angel Hair, which should sound even better. And besides listening we of course measure the effect and for the right amount. I also ordered a polyester fleece (1cm thick) to ensure the driver is protected and the stuffing does not fall down the bass pipe. Does anyone have experience with Angel Hair?
Last edited:
today the angel hair arrives. i also ordered a polyester breathable fleece to hold the damping material in place and protect the driver. i glue a strip the width of the inside to the slanted board and run that strip back then up, forward and back down. this way i can fill the tip and make sure there is angel hair behind the driver. there is now 100 grams of wool in the tip so i start with 25 grams of angel hair which is much more effective than wool.
Last edited by a moderator:
Even though "Angel Hair" has been around for a long time as a muting material, you will find very little information about the experiences. In 2008 it was tested by a Dutch Audio magazine "Music Emotion" and they had replaced the existing damping material in the midrange room of a speaker with a small amount of "Angel Hair" and found that the midrange had increased, the ambiance had improved and sounds in the concert hall, the creaking of a chair and the tapping of an instrument were much more audible. After determining the right amount, they enjoyed reference recordings like never before. On a Dutch self-build site, a self-builder compared "Angel Hair" with wool in a closed cabinet and found that the same damping was achieved with more than 4x less Angel Hair than with wool. In terms of degree of damping with 10 grams of Angel Hair and 46 grams of wool, the graphs of Angel Hair and wool were virtually the same.
producers indicate: Its long micrometer thin fibers absorb and dampen the lower audio frequency range (<1kHz) in subwoofers and long transmission line cabinets. Due to the resulting audible differences, Angel Hair is an essential “must” for many well-known developers and manufacturers of high-end speakers.
producers indicate: Its long micrometer thin fibers absorb and dampen the lower audio frequency range (<1kHz) in subwoofers and long transmission line cabinets. Due to the resulting audible differences, Angel Hair is an essential “must” for many well-known developers and manufacturers of high-end speakers.
Last edited:
I wish they'd just publish some equivalent comparative measurements with some popular other materials in the same test boxes by density & frequency & have done with it. Then everybody can see its absorbtion properties relative to other materials, & they wouldn't need to resort to the old purple prose. 😉
On a Dutch DiyAudio site I found the following:
Measurements Angel Hair vs Longhair Wool
The response of the empty closed box
The response of the box with 10gr Angel Hair (blue) versus 46gr long hair wool (purple). These are almost identical, I checked the waterfalls and I see no differences here either.
The response of the box with Angel Hair 10gr (blue), 20gr (red) and 35gr (green). At 10 grams you can see that there is still a remainder of the standing wave at 300Hz. At 20gr this has disappeared. At 35gr there is a loss of efficiency in the low end. In this box 35gr corresponds to 10gr/liter
The waterfalls of 10gr, 20gr and 35gr in succession. At 35gr you actually see no improvement compared to the situation with 20gr.
Here I have filled the box the old way again, pritex on the tapered end and the rest filled with 46gr wool (purple line). I have compared this with 35gr Angel Hair (blue line). The situation then becomes very comparable, the pritex complements the effect of the longhair wool well. You can see that the box with 35gr Angel Hair has less yield, so you should definitely not put too much in it
The waterfall of the damping with pritex and 46gr longhair wool.
Measurements Angel Hair vs Longhair Wool
The response of the empty closed box
The response of the box with 10gr Angel Hair (blue) versus 46gr long hair wool (purple). These are almost identical, I checked the waterfalls and I see no differences here either.
The response of the box with Angel Hair 10gr (blue), 20gr (red) and 35gr (green). At 10 grams you can see that there is still a remainder of the standing wave at 300Hz. At 20gr this has disappeared. At 35gr there is a loss of efficiency in the low end. In this box 35gr corresponds to 10gr/liter
The waterfalls of 10gr, 20gr and 35gr in succession. At 35gr you actually see no improvement compared to the situation with 20gr.
Here I have filled the box the old way again, pritex on the tapered end and the rest filled with 46gr wool (purple line). I have compared this with 35gr Angel Hair (blue line). The situation then becomes very comparable, the pritex complements the effect of the longhair wool well. You can see that the box with 35gr Angel Hair has less yield, so you should definitely not put too much in it
The waterfall of the damping with pritex and 46gr longhair wool.
Very interesting, and many thanks for the data. From what I can see on a quick gander, it's (as expected) an effective damping material, and requires a little less in the way of density than long-hair wool for essentially the same result. That apart, there doesn't appear to be anying particularly significant going on -but since you can say the same about long-haired wool itself, or most other damping materials, it's in good company! Speaking generally, there are often some subtle variations in required densities & absorbtion characteristics with frequency, especially at lighter levels (as Augspurger showed with the materials he tested) but as those increase the differences tend to even out, as these also confirm. On the whole, if you can 'do the same with less' [damping material] then that's usually a good thing, although I'd guess it comes at a bit of a price. 😉
Many tests and measurements with different damping materials; unfortunately Angel Hair has not been tried...
I imagine the name (and the nominal manufacturer) aren't likely to do it many favours at ASR. 😉 Probably more than their 'Unicorn Tail', but that's like saying some parts of the Titanic are less underwater than others. Not that I've anything at all against ASR -quite the reverse.
Last edited:
Tried this with the actual Sibelius, not much difference and prefer the original natural bass extension. Perhaps beneficial for the clones?…
