Barleywater,
That is really cool. Let me get this straight, you are saying that if I provide you the IR of a driver (in a .wav file etc or as natively stored in REW), you can take software to convolve the response of any arbitrary driver's IR with a reference sound clip, and produce a clip of what that sound clip would sound like if played through that driver?
The sound clip sounds fantastic, and we see what the TC9FD is capable of in a system with sufficient bass help via FAST. I have one request, can you please provide a similar clip but convolved with another driver so we can hear the difference? Maybe PS95-8 or 5MR450NDY?
So what we are hearing is the reference clip 3, convolved with the TC9FD IR, so that it is perfect, that is, free of room reflections (if properly gated), audio electronic chain propagation noise/distortion, etc?
So, if we figure out how to do what you are showing us here, we can "audition" any driver virtually without any equipment, provided someone provides a high quality IR pulse for us to do the convolution?
Very cool!!! Actually, a paradigm shift for auditioning drivers really. Because now, the IR can also include the effect of a particular cabinet, like a BLH, BVR, BR, MLTL, FLH, etc...
Wow!
Thanks,
X
Btw, this should give a great impetus for the folks who have been PM'ing me with getting a "Howto DSP Convolution" thread going. I think you all should collaborate on this - you know who you are 🙂 Pretty pleez? Thanks.
Last edited:
Barleywater and xrk971,
Very interesting stuff, guess Wesayso had mentioned these possibilities before.
TC9FD IR was gated so guess all frequency lower than the gate setting is the perfect reference track mixed with higher frequency contour of TC9, this makes it different to X's recordings where we have minimum phase XO's distortion, diffraction and boundery problems too.
Very interesting stuff, guess Wesayso had mentioned these possibilities before.
TC9FD IR was gated so guess all frequency lower than the gate setting is the perfect reference track mixed with higher frequency contour of TC9, this makes it different to X's recordings where we have minimum phase XO's distortion, diffraction and boundery problems too.
Last edited:
Also, as I've mentioned in other threads, you won't hear the nonlinear distortions via convolution. The drivers with higher levels of HD/IMD will have an advantage when compared in this manner to "cleaner" drivers.
It should be noted that the RS 40-1197 is not an FE103 copy. It is a real FE103 variation built by Foster specifically for RS.
dave
But if the impulse response was obtained from my speaker baffle and rear chamber and sufficient gating equal to baffle half width, the diffraction effects would indeed be included. As Gmad said though, the non linear distortion will not show up and the speaker will sound better than it really is. I suppose one could apply a HD convolution equivalent to the measured HD curves for at least 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th order HD maybe it can be approximated. If one took the IR gate out real far, you could even get my my room's acoustics included - echoes and all.
Thanks for clarifying - is the FOSTER FE103 really smooth like that or is that specific to the 1197 implementation?
Depends on the unit (there were a number of variations in the design) and where it was made (ones i have seen like Godzilla's have been Korean or Taiwanese)
This driver (and the 40-1354) launched many a persons journey into FRs.
dave
Thanks xrk for posting the measurements! I'd imagine others have these three drivers stashed away since they were offered up cheap before being discontinued. I want them back to build projects with and was unaware folks were leaving drivers for you to keep. I wouldn't have sent them if that were the case. I'm glad I sent them to you and happy you tested them.
Many thanks for taking the time to help the diy community 'see' and 'hear' what's going on with all of the drivers you've tested. What's interesting to me is the similarity of the curves. The drivers sound much more different than the curves might suggest. Personally, I find the 1197 a bit fatiguing and the other drivers too lifeless. Fortunately there are other options but I could enjoy music thru any of them.
Despite similar frequency response curves, does it make sense that there are other variables (cone diameter, surround, cone material, etc.) that would cause a driver to have a 'character'?
Keep up the good work. This is a classic thread!
Godzilla
Many thanks for taking the time to help the diy community 'see' and 'hear' what's going on with all of the drivers you've tested. What's interesting to me is the similarity of the curves. The drivers sound much more different than the curves might suggest. Personally, I find the 1197 a bit fatiguing and the other drivers too lifeless. Fortunately there are other options but I could enjoy music thru any of them.
Despite similar frequency response curves, does it make sense that there are other variables (cone diameter, surround, cone material, etc.) that would cause a driver to have a 'character'?
Keep up the good work. This is a classic thread!
Godzilla
xrk - as seen in Cal's photos, among other attributes, the early vintage Foster 103F and Coral etc variants were fitted with Alnico magnets - of varying sizes, and of course any of that age (some 50yrs now) will be subject to either/both "stiff surround / suspension syndrome" and depletion of the alnico motor strength
>>> This driver (and the 40-1354 launched many a persons journey into FRs.
I have two 'new in box' 1354s waiting for cabinets. There was a time when we could buy 'mellow' sounding full range drivers (RS 1354, Pioneer B20, for example) for about $20 each. Bass extension was sufficient and adding a tweeter was optional.
I have two 'new in box' 1354s waiting for cabinets. There was a time when we could buy 'mellow' sounding full range drivers (RS 1354, Pioneer B20, for example) for about $20 each. Bass extension was sufficient and adding a tweeter was optional.
Godzilla,
You are welcome. Thanks for providing some classic drivers. It was fun getting to play with a 1197 or Foster FE103. Since these were all paper cone 4in drivers - they kind of sound similar with the exception of the 1197 being smoother and hence less prone to sibillance. In a FAST with a XO that doesn't require much excursion from the cone we will here mostly the Mids and HF as the difference.
Last edited:
Godzilla's 1197 has a ferrite magnet and appears newer - circa 15-20yrs old but in like new condition. The TS params are pretty close to soec still, fs is a bit higher maybe can use breakin.
If anyone wants to guess the identities that would be good as I will revealed tonight.
Of these 3, I kinda wrote off F...that one just sounded hollow to me. A and B seemed fairly close, but in the end I generally preferred A, it seemed like the piano comes out a bit more properly.
They do all kinda sound a little dumpy in the mids though...that might just be a little too much thunder and lightning eq in the originals.
They do all kinda sound a little dumpy in the mids though...that might just be a little too much thunder and lightning eq in the originals.
Oh, I meant the 3 from Barley that had to be renamed from .asc.
I only listened to the first set for a second or two, I noticed the voting was closed, so I wasn't sure if everyone was still trying those or not.
Edit: From the first set, I think I'd go with B for sounding the most neutral, but I admit I only downloaded a full set from 1 track.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.