I can't believe you're saying that the measurment is not accurate. They were all made under the same setup. If you look at factory graphs of the other drivers, you will see they pretty much match what I measured despite the so called "not very accurate measures" you cite. Next thing you will say is that my microphone calibration is off. The MA factory graph is the only one that is way off - even without the dips, the high end falls off way faster than the factory graph claimed. I have no expectation of what it sounds like when listening to it - folks just have to take a listen to the clip without EQ and judge for themselves.
I will add that all your claims and arguments are anecdotal and subjective. The title of this thread is objective comparisons. Show some data to back your claims or this will just turn into another thread debating how one driver has more "x" than the other. Replace x with the favorite non measurable non quantitiative subjective descriptor like DDR, presence, immediacy, speed, resolution, detail, etc
Last edited:
How do you measure "low level detail"? Presumably that detail has a pitch, right? So the frequency responses show, thus far, that the VIFA produces them more accurately than the MA.
What other measurements are needed?
Are you saying the VIFA smears detail? Energy storage that would make for a terrible CSD?
I love it when the new dawg goes at a moderator. The thing is, we're not looking for The One. Just saying…contribute yes control not so much. Thanks
+1.
X has provided some objective data. There are ways, well known ways that have existed for many years to interpret the objective data. Here are two more articles by D'Appolitto (who literally wrote the book on measurements) on how to interpret objective data:
http://audioxpress.com/files/dappolito2959.pdf
http://audioxpress.com/files/dappolito2960.pdf
Yes, on-axis frequency response will not tell you everything; a group of measurements are needed. But it is the single most important measurement that correlates most with what we hear. We start here.
This always gets me, too.
I've never seen a good explanation for why users here can take measurements of drivers produced by other manufacturers that prove to be accurate, yet no-one can seem to get close with MarkAudio drivers.
If we assume that MarkAudio's measurements are accurate, then his drivers must posses some unique property that makes home measurement impossible. I say "unique" because it seems no other manufacturer's products are imbued this property.
What is so special about MarkAudio drivers than makes them impossible to measure at home?
Last edited:
Hmm,....
I think low level detail could be measured in a waterfall graph, maybe.
I agree with freq response effecting what we hear.
Too much 1-4khz = shouty.
No baffle step = midrangy.
4.5khz peak = spitty (think piezo done wrong)
Peak at 6khz, a little Clangy.
Peak near 8khz = spitty , S's and it's last too long.
I remember Bob brines mentioning how close drivers sound once they are eq'd flat.
Norman
I think low level detail could be measured in a waterfall graph, maybe.
I agree with freq response effecting what we hear.
Too much 1-4khz = shouty.
No baffle step = midrangy.
4.5khz peak = spitty (think piezo done wrong)
Peak at 6khz, a little Clangy.
Peak near 8khz = spitty , S's and it's last too long.
I remember Bob brines mentioning how close drivers sound once they are eq'd flat.
Norman
Last edited:
is lack of downward dynamic range a type of hysteresis where some drivers for whatever reasons never produce the soft sounds in proportion in the first place and not an artifact of ringing? How is it affected by HF rolloff point, diaphragm damping, etc? -It might be measurable and recorded in a quiet environment. What useful new tests might the hobbyist devise to convey differences via data? Are recordings of loudspeakers playing music at all useful?
When talking about drivers and speaker design, it helps to create a structure that everyone fully understands. So, when things like "DDR" are bandied about, it is not helpful to the discussion at all, because nobody understands what "DDR" is. What is high "DDR?" Why do I want it? How do I measure it? If I cannot measure it, then as a speaker manufacturer, how do I know when I have it? Oh, you say I must listen to the driver? Then, how do I communicate to the speaker designers about why I designed the driver this way?
Manufacturers like Vifa and Scanspeak have been doing this for ages, and they "talk" in terms that the speaker design community understands. One look at their spec sheet and you know everything you need. And their measurements match those of diyers.
Again, read the D'Appolitto papers. The important measurements and how to interpret them are all in there:
http://audioxpress.com/files/dappolito2959.pdf
http://audioxpress.com/files/dappolito2960.pdf
The recording industry and manufacturers like JBL and Genelec have not stood still over the years. They have spent millions of dollars on research in trying to understand what can make their speakers better. The answer? Flat, smooth frequency response. Look at the JBL M2 monitor measurements. Look at the Genelec speaker measurements. These are the speakers that go into mastering rooms that are used to make the music we listen to.
Manufacturers like Vifa and Scanspeak have been doing this for ages, and they "talk" in terms that the speaker design community understands. One look at their spec sheet and you know everything you need. And their measurements match those of diyers.
Again, read the D'Appolitto papers. The important measurements and how to interpret them are all in there:
http://audioxpress.com/files/dappolito2959.pdf
http://audioxpress.com/files/dappolito2960.pdf
The recording industry and manufacturers like JBL and Genelec have not stood still over the years. They have spent millions of dollars on research in trying to understand what can make their speakers better. The answer? Flat, smooth frequency response. Look at the JBL M2 monitor measurements. Look at the Genelec speaker measurements. These are the speakers that go into mastering rooms that are used to make the music we listen to.
Last edited:
Planet10,
Will remind you often point out how urgent in FAST system to use 1. ordens XO to keep phase flat as possible. Now you praise a driver with buildin brickwall steep kind of bandpass that will change timing on all notes played in the two steep slopes where phase will turn as crazy and instrument firering notes these areas will have timing heavily distorted, group delay won't be pretty.
Will remind you often point out how urgent in FAST system to use 1. ordens XO to keep phase flat as possible. Now you praise a driver with buildin brickwall steep kind of bandpass that will change timing on all notes played in the two steep slopes where phase will turn as crazy and instrument firering notes these areas will have timing heavily distorted, group delay won't be pretty.
Attachments
Yes indeed, how?
Not all ESLs are transparent, and transparency as a characteristic is not limited exclusively to ESLs -- unless you are talking about them being see thru and that is measurable.
dave
The same fallable setup. A setup which has been noted as not in the far-field (a necessity), or windowed (so at least some of the measurement is of your room not the speaker, i will let the experts say how much)
dave
I realize I am going out on a limb here, but bear with me.
We are always critical (rightfully in my mind) of any reviews in audio magazines and the like that are written from the point of view of persons who have a vested interest in the items being reviewed (e.g. anyone who depends on the 'brand' being promoted, or someone who may be perceived as getting some kind of kickback,' e.g. free sample drivers, for the reviews in question). Such 'associations' call into question that objectivity of the accounts in question.
As an independent observer, I sense that some people here are beginning to question the objectivity of some accounts of certain drivers. This is reinforced by the perception that some members receive certain 'benefits' (e.g. free test drivers) that may be influencing their presentations of said drivers.
This perception might be alleviated if 'sample' or 'test' drivers were not given freely to the proponents in question.
I don't mean to offend anyone here, I'm just commenting as a disinterested observer of a general trend that I've been noticing on many of the discussions lately.
We are always critical (rightfully in my mind) of any reviews in audio magazines and the like that are written from the point of view of persons who have a vested interest in the items being reviewed (e.g. anyone who depends on the 'brand' being promoted, or someone who may be perceived as getting some kind of kickback,' e.g. free sample drivers, for the reviews in question). Such 'associations' call into question that objectivity of the accounts in question.
As an independent observer, I sense that some people here are beginning to question the objectivity of some accounts of certain drivers. This is reinforced by the perception that some members receive certain 'benefits' (e.g. free test drivers) that may be influencing their presentations of said drivers.
This perception might be alleviated if 'sample' or 'test' drivers were not given freely to the proponents in question.
I don't mean to offend anyone here, I'm just commenting as a disinterested observer of a general trend that I've been noticing on many of the discussions lately.
And you too. Were are the psyhoacoustic ear/brain studies that correlate what you measure (assumming you can bring the measure sup to snuff) to what a human being perceives. Toole/Olive/Geddes have scratched the surface but we still have a long ways to go.
dave
How can you even try to compare them? MA graphs are taken in an anechic chamber on an IEC baffle, with professional gear, by professionals.
Not that i am defending MA measures -- i don't care one way or the other -- just that the connidions between yours and his are so different that comparison is meaningless.
dave
Not invented yet. So you have to rely on the highest resolution device currently available, the trained human ear/brain, but that is subjective and many can't put their teeth into that.
But one has to remember that in the end stimulating the ear/brain is the whole point.
Smooshing detail into a grey soup is not the same thing as energy storage. How many CSDs have you seen with 40-50 dB of vertical resolution?
dave
I have presented dozens of objective graphs, and careful secondary tests of the CHN70 because it was the only one that deviated so far from the factory data. Even with the microphone based acoustical response measures, how does one explain the deviation in the measured free air impedance? The 700Hz blip is less than 0.3ohm in the factory data and maybe 10x greater in reality. That is a big difference.
What objective data have you presented thus far? I have yet to see single measurement or quantitative piece of data but a lot talk, anecdotes, and criticism of my measurement setup. It's getting old.
It's kind of like the change that happened with a lot of things once technology and low price combine to empower the consumer. The former bastions of exclusivity with regards to audio measurement capability has undergone a sea change with the advent of low cost (yet suitably accurate mics) and free measurement software like REW and Holmimpulse. I am quite certain that another diy'er with the same $70 mic and REW software can get very accurate and useful quantitative data from their non anechoic, non B&K mics to make an informed choice of what driver to use and how to measure the speaker in order to optimize it.
If you are talking about me, i am only posting as a moderator when you see the cop hat.
I do have some 40+ years of experience, quite a few of those in the trenches. X has been at it for what? 2 years? 😀
dave
All measurements are relative to the environment in which the are made, but if measurements are not capable of being extended, analogously, to different environments (e.g. from an anechoic chamber to someone's living room), then what's the point of the measurements?
Ok, now we are clinging onto the need for identical anechoic chambers and $2k mics and $10k LMS setups before any non "meaningless" comparison can be made?
Regarding professionally made measurements and the comment that I have only been at diyAudio for 2 years: you are bordering on prohibited personal attacks there. You do not know my background and the extent of my experience with pro grade mics, acoustic measurement testing, use of transient digitizers, spectrum analyzers in my former daily professional life, before I appeared on diyAudio.
Let's get this thread back on track and talk about the objective data and comparisons. Enough of this derailment of the main topic.
Last edited:
- Status
- Not open for further replies.