Not always and not with every signal. With music you probably just get an EQ like effect, amplifying certain frequencies that normally would have been masked. In the end the result might be an unexpected and pleasing effect but not what was intended by the mixing engineer. Heres an example.
I decline to post FR measures. They are not relevant,
I do not consider myself talking down to people. I am pointing out shortcomings of the posted data, the relavance, andhelping people understand how things work.
dave
Sometimes, Not always.
Which you will only ever know if you sit in the mixing room with him.
dave
Guys I know this is just a subjective post, but I have both a pair of Quad ESL 57s and two different systems built around Mark Audio Alpair 7 fullrange drivers. The Alpair systems are extraordinarily close in sound to the ESLs which are themselves considered a reference in accuracy.
Nevertheless I find the discussion in this thread interesting but wish for more open minds. We would all learn a lot if we could find a way to reconcile the two opposing viewpoints expressed here.
Nevertheless I find the discussion in this thread interesting but wish for more open minds. We would all learn a lot if we could find a way to reconcile the two opposing viewpoints expressed here.
That's is just like saying air isn't relevant to human happiness. Without air there are no humans hence it doesn't really matter what would make humans happy.
I do. Just wanted to let you know. Maybe you go back and re-read the reactions to your posts the last few days...
That's good if it is done in a constructive manner.
You failed miserably at doing that. You promote concepts that are not known in the professional/scientific world neither do you explain them.
Not necessary the line you talk down on me I'm full aware you a library of knowledge regarding speakers compared me, try differentiate when to take PRO hat on verse DIY hat. Subject is not how a driver works and i don't understand that as good as you, subject is measure its impedance and weird i shall learn you that opposit a microphone which is impossible to check its precision in home facilities a DATS device is a measuring tool which can be calibrated and precision checked via a reference R L or C. Having calibrated it and checked a reference component you have a fine instrument. Personal have DATS v1, seen xrk971 have the brand new DATS v2 released think around new year which deal with problems that non experienced users could run into.
Great you will throw in CHN70 and TC9FD data later but what is wrong the data you already have "QUOTE (CHN & VIFA) data i have UNQUOTE" do it need smoothing before revealed, attach CHN70 datasheet verse xrk971 plot, different conditions can't explain that.
Thanks info, propose you throw in brand new A7 paper could be great
.Attachments
Last edited:
So how do you make that distinction? You've dismissed any data point shown so far. What data are you looking at or do you really believe you're the one person on this planet without bias that could use his ears for such a task?
Exactly. That's why it is important to aim for accuracy and not for preference. The guy behind the mixing desk gets to make the decision how something sounds. All we can do is either like it or not.
Before Thiele and Small came up with the parameters and method used to size cabinets in the 60s, there must have been people that used judgement to size cabinets. It would work sometimes, but it was not perfect. Now we have the scientific method and the means to predict listener preference based on a set of measurements, the most important of which is the on-axis frequency response. The scientific method says that all listeners prefer a flat, smooth, on-axis response. Of course you will claim that the tests were done blind and are not valid. But that is what the science says. It has been written over and over, books have been printed on the subject. All the large manufacturers first target a flat and smooth response curve. Vifa's TC9 is not a fool's product. It is a product that must be applauded for it achieves the most important things in an elegant and cost-effective package.
You quoted Harry Olson, "In all things audio, the ear is the final arbiter." Well, you will be glad to learn that the ear, and the ear alone (not the eyes, or a person's personal interests) prefers a neutral, flat response speaker.
Last edited:
Ra7, being on my phone I can't help you with a source. Feel free to look around. If you think about it, does the world sound different than when you were a kid? My audiologist says I'm 10db down from theoritically perfect at 8khz, but when a tweeter is merely 2db bright I hate it. And he said that's better than average. Or how about when you've listened to a speaker for a long time it starts to sound normal then you change speakers and you realize what you've been missing. Like listening to your tv and then on the weekend firing up the home theatre and hearing the change.
Like was mentioned, once it's to far gone nothing can be done. The brain can't fill in something it can barely hear.
Like was mentioned, once it's to far gone nothing can be done. The brain can't fill in something it can barely hear.
Only the ones that were made under conditions that made them invalid, and attempts to use the data to quantify the entire performance of the drivers.
But what is accurate? What tells you it is accurate? Speakers are so bad -- even the best of them -- that there are many ways to be accurate. No speaker gets close to doing them all. Which assets do you pick?
The guy who does the mixing has flawed speakers too. He is doing a mix that he thinks is good on his speaker. He does not even know everything he is putting into the mix.
And that does not even consider what his room is like... certainly different than yours.
FR is one small piece of the puzzle. Like talking about the HP in a car engine without knowing how much the car weighs, the torque, how well the power is transmitted from engine to road.
dave
There is only one way to be accurate, but there are many ways for a speaker to be not accurate. That much is clear.
The mixing/mastering engineers are knowledgeable people. The industry as a whole also seems to be improving with many cheap and accurate monitors from the likes of Behringers on the market. Of course, the big boys like JBL and Genelec have superb performing monitors.
All of this gives no reason to choose a speaker with a built in coloration. This is like choosing a TV with saturated reds and having to watch everything with the coloration. A much better way is to start with a neutral sounding speaker, which from my personal experience sounds good on pretty much every music and album, and then EQ it on certain music, if you find it unsatisfactory.
My point is that you are trying to directly compare impedance curves taken under different conditions that are not necessarily comparable. I am not either is wrong, or either is right. They both could be. Just that the measuring conditions are so different you cannot compare them.
As an example, here are the T/S parameters taken of the same FE127e, one set by me with my (old) impedance jig and one by Mark's (with factory numbers thrown in for reference). They are both valid. And they are very different. You cannot say one is wrong because they are so different because the measurement conditions were different.
dave
Attachments
That is an understatement. Given that even the best speakers are maybe 10-20% of the way there it is totally conceivable to have 2 speakers that sound totally different and are equally accurate.
Which do you pick? I say the one that best connects YOU emotionally to the music. That may well be a different one than i choose.
A totally accurate speaker is pie in the sky. And cheap FRs would not normally be considered as best of breed.
The good ones among the best speakers currently available but still have a long ways to go.
But we so far are pretty much only talking about amplitude colouration here. What about other kinds of colouration that can have equal or greater impact on the total colouration?
dave
Sorry about the multi-quotes, I hate it.
Amplitude coloration is linear distortion and is the greatest kind of coloration. Need to fix that first. All other forms of distortion are non-linear and have a second order impact.
A beer or two makes me get on the dance floor even with the worst speaker. Should I just drink beer then before listening to any speaker? Sure the CHN70 may make anemic sounding recordings better, but everything else that is mixed properly will sound terrible on it. The flat response speakers make poor recordings sound better and the best recordings sound best.
Still a long way to go compared to what? Live music? If they are the best currently available, why should we not try to imitate them?
Amplitude coloration is linear distortion and is the greatest kind of coloration. Need to fix that first. All other forms of distortion are non-linear and have a second order impact.
Are there any 3 to 4 inch full rangers that have both good measurements and meet everyone's subjective expectations?
That's an honest question, though I'm afraid i already know the answer.
But, I was just thinking, if there was such a driver, it might be interesting to work backwards from that and see where the "measures good" and "sounds good" camps start to diverge.
That's an honest question, though I'm afraid i already know the answer.
But, I was just thinking, if there was such a driver, it might be interesting to work backwards from that and see where the "measures good" and "sounds good" camps start to diverge.
As to the opening question, I'd suspect your known answer is "not very likely", and as with Scott earlier, that's all I want to contribute to this thread.
Note: censor nanny redacted qualifier in quoted phrase above, and I thought I'd cleaned it up
Note: censor nanny redacted qualifier in quoted phrase above, and I thought I'd cleaned it up
Up to you. I don't drink.
The CHN-70 is a cheap flawed speaker. I chose it tocompare to the VIFA because it is what i had around. What it does better than the VIFA, it does so much better that it is a better speaker... at least to me, and all the others that have heard the same comparison.
Compared to where i think we can get. It is a number PFTA based on how good bintage speakers were considered and how far we have come from there.
We are just starting to see the dawn of tools becoming readily available to the masses and pscho-acoutic research being done that is starting to correlate what we hear to what we measure. Massively powerful computer hardware available to almost everyone. Software is still in its infancy but it is getting better fast.
It is like the early days of desk-top publishing. Back when tools started democartizing the publishing business. Back when one often saw documents with every font in the libary. The overuse of Zaph Chancery.
It is considered that only because the most common tools we have measure amplitude. If it was true, none of us would be using FR drivers. They have some magic (a particular kind of accuracy) that is rare in a multiway.
dave
- Status
- Not open for further replies.