Regarding it get more difficult and time consuming to hear difference for sound clips as drivers quality is upped and this effect mayby hinder many to participate with their votes makes me wonder if sound clip material can be served different to improve better focus when listening.
For discussion instead of as is now Zoom recorder record a mono speaker playing acoustic right channel from track into a stereo track by its two microphones and presume each microphone record to right and left track on the recording. Then we listen recorded sound clip at a stereo setup and if this is speakers instead of headphones isn't there a chance that because we listen to a mono speaker recorded that a stereo set of speakers develop comb filtering. Reference track is normal stereo so when one compare to the recorded right channel mono sound clip from speaker, the left channel in reference track is annoying because its not present at recorded sound clip.
Suggest in Audacity mix Zoom recorders left and right channels plus SPL normalize and place this mixed track only at right channel and left channel cleared then exported as stereo. Reference track should have left channel cleared so when exported we get a stereo track with only right channel material.
We then end up stereo sound clip and reference track with empty left channels ready to compare at speaker system setup playing only out of right speaker which is same as in X's lab and comb filtering a non problem. If this is weird or bad when listening in headphones one can probably easy find a way to route right channel to left headphone channel for listening same mono signal into both ears.
Would above have possibility to ease focus in listening process and maybe get more participating voters as round 1 which had 85, round 2 had 50, and round 3 had 28 voters.
For discussion instead of as is now Zoom recorder record a mono speaker playing acoustic right channel from track into a stereo track by its two microphones and presume each microphone record to right and left track on the recording. Then we listen recorded sound clip at a stereo setup and if this is speakers instead of headphones isn't there a chance that because we listen to a mono speaker recorded that a stereo set of speakers develop comb filtering. Reference track is normal stereo so when one compare to the recorded right channel mono sound clip from speaker, the left channel in reference track is annoying because its not present at recorded sound clip.
Suggest in Audacity mix Zoom recorders left and right channels plus SPL normalize and place this mixed track only at right channel and left channel cleared then exported as stereo. Reference track should have left channel cleared so when exported we get a stereo track with only right channel material.
We then end up stereo sound clip and reference track with empty left channels ready to compare at speaker system setup playing only out of right speaker which is same as in X's lab and comb filtering a non problem. If this is weird or bad when listening in headphones one can probably easy find a way to route right channel to left headphone channel for listening same mono signal into both ears.
Would above have possibility to ease focus in listening process and maybe get more participating voters as round 1 which had 85, round 2 had 50, and round 3 had 28 voters.
How about a Zep track
Big amp, big speakers, and turn this up to 11.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C0DD2zGT2Tg
jeff
Nice track!
Sounds as the sound clip compare to reference track would improve then. Remember some previous post here round 3 yourself took the listening test and expressed it was not easy task. Had i a Zoom recorder could have tested the three scenarios myself by that i mean test the original recording setup, my suggestion and your last suggestion if any of them would give better focus and faster process when listening sound clips. Personal think good enough as is but more participating voters would be nice wouldn't it if possible, or maybe it was just the ACDC track that sold more tickets
.
Here I agree, I think...
Why not mix down to mono for driver playback, record on zoom, and mix that result to mono also?
I find the stereo room ambience of a single channel quite distracting in these tests. Sure the reverb effects will still be there but the pseudo stereo effect would be gone.
In.the last test this was particularly noticeable to me. Also the lack of the effect when playing the classical track was really obvious, due to the heavy chorusing effect of the original track.
Last edited:
I was down and didn't vote but IIRC - picked two MA early on
Maybe you should put a MA in a K and it will be even better
Measurements of Round 3 Drivers
Measurements were made with a miniDSP UMIK-1 microphone calibrated by an independent 3rd party (Cross Spectrum Labs). Mic was 0.5m meters away from driver, at zero degrees (on axis) of driver under test.
Here are the Impulse Responses for
Driver A:
Driver B:
Driver C:
Driver D:
Driver E:
Driver F:
Driver G:
Driver H:
Measurements were made with a miniDSP UMIK-1 microphone calibrated by an independent 3rd party (Cross Spectrum Labs). Mic was 0.5m meters away from driver, at zero degrees (on axis) of driver under test.
Here are the Impulse Responses for
Driver A:
Driver B:
Driver C:
Driver D:
Driver E:
Driver F:
Driver G:
Driver H:
Attachments
Last edited:
Measured Harmonic Distortion
HD data taken with mic at 0.5m and 1.4v drive level. Not particularly challenging drive levels, but just happened to be what I used for the main frequency response and impulse response measurement. A driver should have very low HD levels at 1/4 watt drive levels. If there are peaks, they are indicative of a much larger problem at larger drive voltages, for example, voltages required to reach 90dB.
Driver A:
Driver B:
Driver C:
Driver D:
Driver E:
Driver F:
Driver G:
Driver H:
HD data taken with mic at 0.5m and 1.4v drive level. Not particularly challenging drive levels, but just happened to be what I used for the main frequency response and impulse response measurement. A driver should have very low HD levels at 1/4 watt drive levels. If there are peaks, they are indicative of a much larger problem at larger drive voltages, for example, voltages required to reach 90dB.
Driver A:
Driver B:
Driver C:
Driver D:
Driver E:
Driver F:
Driver G:
Driver H:
Attachments
Last edited:
X
Thanks for posting the IR and frequency response. Looking at the impulse response, you can see why some weren't liked; they ring like a bell. But when you look a A the IR isn't bad and decent frequency response one wonders why it didn't get more votes. Any thoughts?
Thanks
Jay
ps these listening test have been fun. Thanks for all the hard work
Thanks for posting the IR and frequency response. Looking at the impulse response, you can see why some weren't liked; they ring like a bell. But when you look a A the IR isn't bad and decent frequency response one wonders why it didn't get more votes. Any thoughts?
Thanks
Jay
ps these listening test have been fun. Thanks for all the hard work
I didn't need to think twice for C and A, as they are the most fatiguing of all. C is the most fatiguing, probably from the frequency response. A is the second, and you can see it has probably the worst THD.
Jay
I can see why you don't like C; rings like a bell. I don't like it either. A doesn't ring. On further examination it does have a rising frequency response. That's what probably disqualified it for most people. As to distortion, most of the drivers are acceptable. See Geddes and Lee.
Thanks
Jay
I can see why you don't like C; rings like a bell. I don't like it either. A doesn't ring. On further examination it does have a rising frequency response. That's what probably disqualified it for most people. As to distortion, most of the drivers are acceptable. See Geddes and Lee.
Thanks
Jay
The more you listen to A, the more it sounds like buzzing piece of paper.
Drivers with Nd motors appear to be better ranked drivers too. It would be nice to see these with burst testing showing IMD. In particular the W3-1364SA; specs claim very limited linear excursion, yet xmax is generous.
I've worked Peerless 830970 2" 4ohm driver with burst signals that span 120volt p-p; above 1kHz the driver is resilient and quite capable.
Drivers with Nd motors appear to be better ranked drivers too. It would be nice to see these with burst testing showing IMD. In particular the W3-1364SA; specs claim very limited linear excursion, yet xmax is generous.
I've worked Peerless 830970 2" 4ohm driver with burst signals that span 120volt p-p; above 1kHz the driver is resilient and quite capable.
Thanks for this
Until now.i had read your last plots upside down....
I'm actually rather impressed by the performance of the FRS5X (A), though the THD is marginally higher across the band than the others, there are no real peaks to speak of (like C & D) or a rising THD like E, despite their overall level being lower. Absence of THD peaks at the LF end of their usable range is a bonus for the FRS5X and the others (excluding C&D, and maybe E).
Also the impulse responses of A and H look like the cleanest of the bunch too. Not too shabby for a €7 driver!
Until now.i had read your last plots upside down....
I'm actually rather impressed by the performance of the FRS5X (A), though the THD is marginally higher across the band than the others, there are no real peaks to speak of (like C & D) or a rising THD like E, despite their overall level being lower. Absence of THD peaks at the LF end of their usable range is a bonus for the FRS5X and the others (excluding C&D, and maybe E).
Also the impulse responses of A and H look like the cleanest of the bunch too. Not too shabby for a €7 driver!
Last edited:
Ok, tell me how to do this without smoking the drivers into puff the magic dragon? I have an IRS2092 and +/-54v power supply capable of 450watts momentary power. I probably can't do this with loaned drivers for fear of toasting them. So the idea is to have a swept sine and apply it at high voltage for a few milliseconds?
I think I don't believe the THD charts, I mean, all drivers look similar here. In reality, small difference can make or break.
I didn't listen or examine C and A in detail. I didn't even listen any of them in full, so I don't know exactly what is wrong with them... But for other drivers I listened in detail and I know the difference between them, their strengths and weaknesses.
And I was surprised that the ranking of the drivers (in letters) in the poll this time matches 100% with my own assessment. H (SBA) and F (Tang Band) both have 4 votes but in my last ranking H is better than F (In my preference system, anything with the most fatigue will have to go to the bottom of preference list. And time is needed to feel this fatigue.)
1. B (It took me a long time to find out that B was objectively the best)
2. D (This is subjectively my first preference. Similar to previous round where my subjective preference was the Peerless but I voted for 10F because it was objectively the best. But this time I didn't want to vote for B80 because I couldn't see a reason to like it)
3. H (This has more realistic HF than D, but D has more power/weight/impact and I prefer that)
4. F (This is initially my first preference. Then move down a few rank after I found the mid-hi is not natural. Then move down further after I feel the fatigue)
5. E (This is just so-so, no serious problems, nothing to write home about)
6. A (The second driver that I don't want to listen)
7. C (Obviously the worst)
This time I had to listen and assess using my Sennheiser and a problematic laptop. I still can hear differences, but it seems difficult to judge which one is better than the other. Usually I use my speakers but this time the speakers are not up to it (A few-days-old crossover and tweeter after a tweeter damage)
Last edited:
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.