@b_force - is this a fair statement...
If a blind test (with equalized response) DID differentiate between the RS paper and aluminum it would not prove that it was the material making the difference.
But if people could NOT differentiate, then it would show that the "interaction of everything" beyond the size, cone profile, and things that are identical between the paper and aluminum cones do NOT have a significant audible difference.
If a blind test (with equalized response) DID differentiate between the RS paper and aluminum it would not prove that it was the material making the difference.
But if people could NOT differentiate, then it would show that the "interaction of everything" beyond the size, cone profile, and things that are identical between the paper and aluminum cones do NOT have a significant audible difference.
Yes, I guess.
That's called (logic) deductive reasoning.
Personally I think it's the wrong question and attitude to begin with.
In my opinion the question should be; can you make a good performing loudspeaker?
Stop the entire idea of "better".
There is no better in science, it's all still part of the law of conservation of misery.
In that case we just have to look at the distortion, inter-modulation distortion and LSI-parameters (BL(x), Le(x), Kms(x) etc etc).
Although there are some more tricky parameters as well (long therm power, and other mechanical stability issues etc).
We don't have to care if something is made out of aluminum, paper, duct-tape or mud.
Better would be actually to have a double blind AB and ABX test to see how much those matter to begin with, like you said!
Even for just a driver there are so many variables at play, the material of the cone is only one bit of the puzzle.
Yet, people seem to put all the blame in just this one variable.
Makes absolutely zero sense to me, and if we wanna use that word, THAT makes the entire thing very pedantic!
Since we are nitpicking one variable, by simplifying and forgetting all the other things.
Mostly not understanding (it seems) that the mechanical interaction is one of the most difficult parts of this puzzle.
That can be as difficult as moving certain glue seams and connections a few millimeters. (slightly exaggerated but not by much)
Sure that is (or could be) linked to the cone material, but that is absolutely not the same as saying it's BECAUSE OF THE cone material.
Last edited:
More tweeter(s)
Line view:
A)
B)
C)
Polar view:
A)
B)
C)
You'd be forgiven for thinking wow- three different tweeters!
In fact, these are views of ONE TWEETER, mounted 3 different ways.
So when people say they know "how [a particular] tweeter sounds"...
We should think - what you’re hearing is more than just the tweeter- the directivity makes a big difference!
How was it actually implemented ?(mounted/installed/crossover)
Line view:
A)
B)
C)
Polar view:
A)
B)
C)
You'd be forgiven for thinking wow- three different tweeters!
In fact, these are views of ONE TWEETER, mounted 3 different ways.
So when people say they know "how [a particular] tweeter sounds"...
We should think - what you’re hearing is more than just the tweeter- the directivity makes a big difference!
How was it actually implemented ?(mounted/installed/crossover)
Reference: author's own
A) SB26ADC mounted in spheroidal cabinet
B) SB26ADC mounted in 20cm wide cabinet with facetted top and side edges
C) SB26ADC mounted in 28cm wide cabinet, on custom waveguide designed by @fluid , with phase shield removed
A) SB26ADC mounted in spheroidal cabinet
B) SB26ADC mounted in 20cm wide cabinet with facetted top and side edges
C) SB26ADC mounted in 28cm wide cabinet, on custom waveguide designed by @fluid , with phase shield removed
Last edited:
