Curmudgeon said:
Bought off the 'trading post' here, so I believe they're broken in.
If my modelling is correct, the grill should provide just the right size for a front chamber - and might have most of the resonances damped by the wood around the horn throat. If not, then I can just remove the grill and use them without. It would be nice to leave them intact, as we occasionally have small children visit our house - and you could probably throw marbles/dice down the horn for fun if you were only 3 feet tall🙁.
I have been using an active set-up, so possibly I won't need to spend money on expensive passive components...(wishful thinking)!
Accouton grille
It's not the holes or shape of the grille that's at issue. When your Accoutons arrive, tap the metal grille with the eraser end of a pencil, it rings like a chime.
We tried a non-hardening clay (little strips) it helped a lot , but removing the grille was better.
It's not the holes or shape of the grille that's at issue. When your Accoutons arrive, tap the metal grille with the eraser end of a pencil, it rings like a chime.
We tried a non-hardening clay (little strips) it helped a lot , but removing the grille was better.
In my expirience measurements tell a lot about the driver. Linear freq response is important but maybe a bit more important is THD measurement. Low THD and natural harmonic spectrum distribution across the used freq response (h2>h3>h5) are very important but THD measurement is usually done just at one power level. THD&harmonic spectral distribution at various frequencies and various levels tells much more.
Zaph said:
Naw zaph, we likes yah here! An independent set of measurements like you post is tremendously useful- your site was the reason I bought the peerless HDS tweeters I now am using in my 'little' rig and I'm quite impressed with them.
Keep up the good work!
I've yet to hear the audio technologies in a good system I remember, though perhaps that's just because they're not unique in visual character.
The accutons, however, I've heard sound extremely good in several systems. Probably the best of these was the lumenwhites (2 of their models), which are ludicrously expensive (tens of thousands of dollars)) but they were very very good speakers. The ones with the multiple 5 1/4 drivers had atrociously bad bass, but the ones with the 7"s were pretty decent in the bass and both were spectacular in the mids and highs.
We thought it sounded better with grille off, the Accouton factory waterfall plots for all their drivers show a suspicious ringing at about that same frequency, the Accouton explanation for this artifact in their plots seems weak.phase_accurate said:
It's easy enough to test for and it's fairly simple to fix. We made a grille out of small diameter brass stock (brass is fairly dead sonically) or you can buy aftermarket plastic ones. It's no show stopper, listen and then decide.
hermanv said:
To my ears grille on accuton tweeter spoils the sound much more than the one on midbass.
Okay so, without turning the heat back on again...
How do you guys think the slit paper range from ScanSpeak compare with the Audio Technology and the Accuton? I know they measure well (though can not compare to either of these other brands!), but how do they sound to you?
I'm considering the 18W/8531
How do you guys think the slit paper range from ScanSpeak compare with the Audio Technology and the Accuton? I know they measure well (though can not compare to either of these other brands!), but how do they sound to you?
I'm considering the 18W/8531
Re: Accouton grille
I was intending to use the grille (initially) as the boundaries of the front chamber of the front-loaded horn (as in the picture - wood is blue, putty/rubber/deflex/whatever is brown). If the centre of the grille is still ringing, then I've already created my chamber and it should be too hard to just remove it.
If I ever get around to it (love them round chew-its).
hermanv said:
tinitus said:Do you know how fragile those membranes are
I was intending to use the grille (initially) as the boundaries of the front chamber of the front-loaded horn (as in the picture - wood is blue, putty/rubber/deflex/whatever is brown). If the centre of the grille is still ringing, then I've already created my chamber and it should be too hard to just remove it.
If I ever get around to it (love them round chew-its).
Attachments
If your front loaded horn contacts as far in from the grille edge as your sketch, my guess would be that it would dampen the grille to quite an extent if a soft glue was used. Caution though, the grille is not attached in such a way as to provide any strength or to carry any load. We found it quite easy to pop the grille off. Its sits in a concentric groove with something like RTV to hold it in, the groove is not very deep.
Let me expose some ignorance on my part, I would have guessed that drivers intended for horn loading would have special Qms or Qts values, not so?
Let me expose some ignorance on my part, I would have guessed that drivers intended for horn loading would have special Qms or Qts values, not so?
I have heard excellent speakers with both brands of drivers. The ones using Accuton were at an exhibition and the AT ones are mine (two-way with a Manger driver).
The reason for chossing AT was that they can be used with low-order filters (I belong to the transient critical camp), their use of beefy voice coils (I was spoilt by Dynaudio) and last but not least that they could be ordered with customised parameters.
I haven't been able to hear the "Lumen white" so far but would definitely like to do so. The interesting fact is that they don't measure as good as many cheaper speakers but those who have heard them rave about them.
Regards
Charles
The reason for chossing AT was that they can be used with low-order filters (I belong to the transient critical camp), their use of beefy voice coils (I was spoilt by Dynaudio) and last but not least that they could be ordered with customised parameters.
I haven't been able to hear the "Lumen white" so far but would definitely like to do so. The interesting fact is that they don't measure as good as many cheaper speakers but those who have heard them rave about them.
Regards
Charles
Interesting "fights" here. Does anybody have experience with the 2" Accuton domes? I'd be interested in any potential dispersion advantages - namely, can one use these domes with a low x-o, say 1k, go without a proper tweeter, and still get decent off axis performance?
The issue of "resolution": Talk of high resolution always makes me suspect either high order HD, or a bump in response in the 3-6k range, or both... think ribbons, Lowthers, residuals of the breakup of metal domes... In my, very limited I admit, experience, if a system sounds spectacular at first, some components of the sound are likely exaggerated and tiring in the long run. Not to mention that any elements that are "highlighted" (read, appear high in detail) imply other elements that are under-represented. Lack of bass makes midrange crystal clear, lack of mids makes bass authoritative, lack of macrodynamics reveals lots of "inner detail" etc. OK I exaggerate for the sake of discussion, but I believe there is some truth here. One always notices the "new" detail more than the missing one that it overshadows. And thusly, ragged FR's generate lots of "new" detail in the peaks, while the missing details in the dips remain unnoticed.
I suspect really good systems sound boring with most material, and truly great only with some select recordings.
Subjective/Objective: Hilarious debate as ever. As a trained scientist, and yes I have used molecular biology tools, I'd definitely say that good science is art, that any measurement has meaning only insofar as the (irrational) hunch to use a specific parameter out of an unlimited number of possible ones (including ratios between various paramters!) was justified after the fact, and that fundamentally new insights usually come with little or no data - lesser scientists are then tasked with verifying the genius' insights with painfully slow experimentation and measurement. NOw, of course I also do appreciate as much data as I can get on any driver, but only because I lack the genius to design from good hunches alone.
And in practical terms: SL has a good compilation of sterophilesque terms and how they do indeed relate to measurable features:
Pro Sound sound quality terms
Also see his own checklist, and I don't think anyone would call SL a subjectivist:
speaker evaluation
The issue of "resolution": Talk of high resolution always makes me suspect either high order HD, or a bump in response in the 3-6k range, or both... think ribbons, Lowthers, residuals of the breakup of metal domes... In my, very limited I admit, experience, if a system sounds spectacular at first, some components of the sound are likely exaggerated and tiring in the long run. Not to mention that any elements that are "highlighted" (read, appear high in detail) imply other elements that are under-represented. Lack of bass makes midrange crystal clear, lack of mids makes bass authoritative, lack of macrodynamics reveals lots of "inner detail" etc. OK I exaggerate for the sake of discussion, but I believe there is some truth here. One always notices the "new" detail more than the missing one that it overshadows. And thusly, ragged FR's generate lots of "new" detail in the peaks, while the missing details in the dips remain unnoticed.
I suspect really good systems sound boring with most material, and truly great only with some select recordings.
Subjective/Objective: Hilarious debate as ever. As a trained scientist, and yes I have used molecular biology tools, I'd definitely say that good science is art, that any measurement has meaning only insofar as the (irrational) hunch to use a specific parameter out of an unlimited number of possible ones (including ratios between various paramters!) was justified after the fact, and that fundamentally new insights usually come with little or no data - lesser scientists are then tasked with verifying the genius' insights with painfully slow experimentation and measurement. NOw, of course I also do appreciate as much data as I can get on any driver, but only because I lack the genius to design from good hunches alone.
And in practical terms: SL has a good compilation of sterophilesque terms and how they do indeed relate to measurable features:
Pro Sound sound quality terms
Also see his own checklist, and I don't think anyone would call SL a subjectivist:
speaker evaluation
phase_accurate said:
Lumen White I have listened to. They are good and open but a bit weightless for their size.
Nice post, I guess I can wander a bit too.MBK said:
Most materials are recorded with enough artificial exaguration of their own, the better recordings lack the artificial emphasis. The best systems make bad recordings listenable, those systems can not restore what is missing, but will still reveal details a lesser system will obscure. To my ears this represents a net gain. If more people had systems of high resolving power, maybe the music industry would make some effort to improve recording quality.
I am an EE, I know all about measurements, I am also an audiophile and lament the ability to measure those things, in any meaningful way, that audiophiles cherish . For your example; there is no piece of test equipment whose meter scale reads boring on one end and interesting on the other. Although techniques for measuring dynamic compression exist, I've never seen them used for audio or for drivers. The waterfall plot might reveal some of this but rarely over more than a 30 dB range, even mediocre systems achieve well over 65dB. There so many parameters that can be measured and simply aren't, and of course there is no commercial equipment to measure an audio system whose stimulus acurately mimics the presentation of music.
There is so much hoopla about the inability to measure.. In fact many of these things can be measured but nobody bothers. The problem is less one of measurement ability but lack of correlation as to what measurements actually track the enjoyment of reproduced music. People often cite accuracy, which sounds like a valid concept but in truth has little meaning. For example digital sound systems can reproduce the pitch of a note with amazing accuracy, this doesn't necessarily make them sound good. Reproduction can hardly be perfect, what are we willling to give up?
The human ear is capable of hearing the noise air molecules make when they bounce off one another and can also tolerate a jet engine at 115 dB SPL or so, a range that escapes almost all test equipment. We can pick out a single conversation at a noisy party like we can focus on one instrument playing in a group. Those kinds of abilities are currently out of reach of any of todays test equipment.
Measuring can't hurt, it will get you close, but currently the ear is the final judge.
MBK said:
Yes some very nice posts here. The comments about spurious detail and clarity are very well taken; the grand old horn systems of the 50's very much a case in point.
One test that I have not seen for a long time is good ol' tone burst. I don't remember who used to publish them, but they tended to be pretty "attention-getting". I would like to see them again.
I really don't get much out of Stereophile's impulse response measurements (or mine for that matter). Just too abstract for me. But as mentioned above, cumulative spectral decay (waterfall) is very useful in showing where a bit of trappery would help. Good audible correlation for me.
When I talk of clarity, it's the "correctness" and "integrated" quality of, for example, the initial transient of stick on cymbal; neither too little nor too much; or the metallic shimmer of a cymbal, rather than a hissish white noise quality. It's the quality that allows one to easily, separately hear one voice in many, or one instrument in many; less blending and homogenizing. And the lack of a tendency to emphasize any source problems. So true transparency requires an absence of the peaks, ringing, poor dynamics, and high order distortion products. But I would not characterize such a system as "boring"; at its best, such a system isn't there, to be either exciting or boring. In that case, blame boredom on the performance. (Oh yeah! That music stuff!)
phase_accurate said:
Lumen White sounds like it measures, good but not that good. To forward for my preference. The cabinet isn't well dampened, some will call it dynamic/ lively.
Skaaning vs Accuton
With these two midrange drivers, which I have tested extensively in both measurements and listening tests, there is a trade-off with each:
- there is not questions that Accuton uses superior material, the cone is better and the magnet and motor are orders of magnitude better.
- with Skanning you are getting conventional materials but Per Skaaning has so much experience choosing the right cone geometry and other aspects of the driver that it produces spectacular results because of his decades of know-how with materials that are extremely simple and inexpensive. You are paying for his experience when you are buying an Audio Technology driver. The same parts can be found in a driver from Parts Express for $10.
Both are exceptional sounding drivers with the proper crossover topology.
With these two midrange drivers, which I have tested extensively in both measurements and listening tests, there is a trade-off with each:
- there is not questions that Accuton uses superior material, the cone is better and the magnet and motor are orders of magnitude better.
- with Skanning you are getting conventional materials but Per Skaaning has so much experience choosing the right cone geometry and other aspects of the driver that it produces spectacular results because of his decades of know-how with materials that are extremely simple and inexpensive. You are paying for his experience when you are buying an Audio Technology driver. The same parts can be found in a driver from Parts Express for $10.
Both are exceptional sounding drivers with the proper crossover topology.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.