An Objective Comparison of 3in - 4in Class Full Range Drivers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Jump to Latest
#241
If you are going to do it, I would suggest not flattening the drivers, but instead mounting them in some neutral cabinet and recording sound clips in a room and posting them without an identifier. And then ask people to pick their favorite sounding. This means there will be no cheating because the files are expected to be different, you just gotta pick a favorite. Maybe do two or three songs.
Click to expand...

Good idea. I was thinking the same thing but your idea of not saying which clip is with which driver is cool. My whole intent with Nautaloss rear chamber and trapezoid baffle was for it to be neutral. I will use identical XO for the bass in a FAST and adjust only levels with no EQ. I will do this and post "blind" clips. We can have a poll. Fun stuff!

This thread has 8k+ views in 3 days is a new record as far as I can tell. More reason to be a sticky.
 
Last edited:
#242
wesayso said:
I'd like to see a test with a few of these small fullrange drivers all equalised to the same target. Blind listening tests with a group of listeners.
I'd leave out the ringing type speakers as one should be able to identify those.
After equalising them to the same target, let's see how they distinguish themselves. Can we really pick out our favourites after the first identifier is removed from the test (being the frequency response deviations).
You'd probably need to do it with Fir filters to counter the phase rotation of the EQ needed, bringing in new variables (possible pre-ringing), so it won't ever be an acceptable test for all.
A test like this would remove one aspect of difference to see if that difference is cause for preference.
I agree that the current discussion leads us nowhere.
Click to expand...

I would go back and do a blind listening test under anechoic conditions. Doing it outside would probably suffice. The question should be as simple as "Is there an audible difference between drivers when equalized to the same target curve?"
If the answer is 'no' then a ton of audiophool beliefs could be trashed once and for all. If the answer is 'yes' then there's finally evidence from which we could progress in an objective and constructive manner.
 
#243
pnix said:
I would go back and do a blind listening test under anechoic conditions. Doing it outside would probably suffice. The question should be as simple as "Is there an audible difference between drivers when equalized to the same target curve?"
If the answer is 'no' then a ton of audiophool beliefs could be trashed once and for all. If the answer is 'yes' then there's finally evidence from which we could progress in an objective and constructive manner.
Click to expand...

Why even bother with that, we all know that the aswer is yes 😀
 
#245
I just wandered into the MA forum to see what has been said about the CHN70 and found these comments:

markaudio said:
Hi Guys,
Its an opportune time as there's been discussions within the new owners group (MarkAudio Loudspeakers Limited and Sota-Markaudio) on data presentation. Currently the investment into an even larger anechoic chamber is happening to the tune of 25,000US$. This + investing in CLIO version 11 and a new lab class mics means the new investment is being taken seriously.


Alas, its unlikely that the data provided by this new set-up will be made available to the Diy side of the business. Some of the new owners have little confidence for being given fair treatment on this issue within Diyaudio. Too much of the negative criticism thats based on home testing doesn't relate to industry standard driver-on-baffle anechoic work. Some diy (non-anechoic) testing proponents too often claim their work is somehow magically superior. None would believe 2 blokes sharing a old 10 dollar multimeter saying "yes we've thoroughly tested your Boeing 747, ready to fly you anywhere". Yet in Diyaudio, some believe such an thinking is perfectly valid.


On the other hand, some makers in the past and today purposefully present data that flaffers a driver's performance. Over-smoothing a response has fuelled suspicion in the minds of some end-users for good reason. Then again, those with any common sense in the business know there's no such thing as a perfect response, so see little point in presenting data thats open to misinterpretation.


I've put allot of hours into Diyaudio trying to facilitate a mature debate to reach some consensus, alas with no success. I've been "shot" too many times by a strident very vocal minority who, in my opinion have deliberately train-wrecked the discourse to favour their own egos. Its a form of modern trolling that has become spicy reading but has done nothing to create genuine enlightenment. Their type of posting activity has damaged Markaudio's business. Its applied even more pressure on me while I'm less able to cope due to my poor health. They take perverse pleasure from their efforts to de-rail the only maker who's prepared to engage with end-users.


Summarising, at this stage, the new owners are likely to stick with LMS V4 data presentation until such time as they feel confident of a seed change inside Diyaudio. This might be a long time (if ever). I wish the situation were different. At least I tried.

Thanks
Mark.
Click to expand...


markaudio said:
Many thanks Joey,
Your support is appreciated.


Some members tell me I'm too critical of these types of issues for which I apologise, its not my intention. But I do think its right to let all members know the situation from MarkAudio's perspective, so everyone is fully informed.


"Free speech" at any cost isn't right. A few members spoil it for the larger reasonable majority knowing they can say anything of a nonsensical sudo-babble-technical nature, without any requirement for taking personal responsibility for their comments. Such is the construction of many forums, identities are hidden. Even moderators are hidden. The operation of the forum is hidden, its ownership is effectively hidden, yet its operated as a "for profit" business. I hope new MarkAudio wishes to be an open, transparent and engaging business within Diyaudio. Given the current operational philosophy of Diyaudio, its difficult to know what the longer term outcome will be.


I risk wondering off topic so I'll end here. Suffice to say I personally would like to publish more in-depth data, but given the current situation on the way this type of issue is handled on Diyaudio, I see no immediate future to add more detailed information. My apologies for this, but there's little specifically I can do.


I would like to expand on the 7P's design and operation, engage more with you guys, but I'm not sure its wise for me to do so; Just becomes cannon fodder for the modern techno-trollers.


I can say this, put any Markaudio driver product in a half decent reasonably well made box; Feed them with a reasonable amp signal and good source, you'll get a pleasing workable result. The drivers will do their job.


My email for the time being remains: support@markaudio.com

Cheers

Mark.
Click to expand...

Ever since Zaph gave the alp6 a bad review Mark has been critical and slanderous towards DIY measurements. It's unfortunate but I'm gonna call him out every time I can on it, apparently because I'm: deliberately trying to train-wreck his business. Ha. Funny how much I liked his drivers at one time, even recommending them nearly daily on this forum and others. Made one criticism of his data and poof, I'm his enemy. XRK, the same is for you I'm sure.

Mark if you're reading this, a FR is not difficult to capture in 2015. Going outdoors and putting a driving 10ft in the air and measuring with a $100 calibrated mic IS good enough with limitations of course. I've matched countless driver spec sheets from Eminence, Scan Speak, Peerless, Celestion, B&C, etc. etc. and have been cross-correlated with other DIY'er measurements. I can't read your 100db Y scale measurement sheet that smears all the detail of your "raw" measurement. Your subtle insults towards DIY'ers and this site aren't appreciated.
 
#247
EQ will change the frequency response to be the same, which is a large portion of what we hear no doubt, but it can't change distortions, polar patterns, bass extension (unless you severly handicap the output), max SPL / dynamic peak capability, thermal compression, linear excursion (all the parameters defined by Klippel measurements), cone break up ringing, and I'm sure I'm missing some more. So ya, they'll still sound different. It does however get quite hard to hear these differences when blind folded and eq'ed the same. I've tried it and it's pretty embarrassing 😀
 
#248
tuxedocivic said:
EQ will change the frequency response to be the same, which is a large portion of what we hear no doubt, but it can't change distortions, polar patterns, bass extension (unless you severly handicap the output), max SPL / dynamic peak capability, thermal compression, linear excursion (all the parameters defined by Klippel measurements), cone break up ringing, and I'm sure I'm missing some more. So ya, they'll still sound different. It does however get quite hard to hear these differences when blind folded and eq'ed the same. I've tried it and it's pretty embarrassing 😀
Click to expand...

Listening outdoors would eliminate the effect different polar patterns have. Frequency response would be the same because of EQ. The only difference is distortion. I've never seen a blind listening test properly conducted under these conditions.
 
#249
tuxedocivic said:
Ever since Zaph gave the alp6 a bad review Mark has been critical and slanderous towards DIY measurements. It's unfortunate but I'm gonna call him out every time I can on it, apparently because I'm: deliberately trying to train-wreck his business. Ha. Funny how much I liked his drivers at one time, even recommending them nearly daily on this forum and others. Made one criticism of his data and poof, I'm his enemy. XRK, the same is for you I'm sure.

Mark if you're reading this, a FR is not difficult to capture in 2015. Going outdoors and putting a driving 10ft in the air and measuring with a $100 calibrated mic IS good enough with limitations of course. I've matched countless driver spec sheets from Eminence, Scan Speak, Peerless, Celestion, B&C, etc. etc. and have been cross-correlated with other DIY'er measurements. I can't read your 100db Y scale measurement sheet that smears all the detail of your "raw" measurement. Your subtle insults towards DIY'ers and this site aren't appreciated.
Click to expand...

I agree.

It's beyond me why he thinks showing less data would be a good thing. If there's a problem with how we 'amateurs' measure, it should be easy to point out what those problems are and why the data isn't valid. Furthermore he could show data that does not have these issues. Instead he shows incomplete, sugarcoated, implausible or no data. Professional manufacturers like Genelec present a lot more data. Why is no wide-band manufacturer capable or willing to do that? Is there something they don't want us to see?
 
#252
tuxedocivic said:
I've never posted a CSD plot for exactly this reason. I believe to do them right, you need an extremely quite outdoor environment. Ya right. Pretty much impossible. But you need data down to 100hz with a 50db scale, and the Z axis (time) should not be so extended that everything looks clean after several slices. Each scale needs to be set carefully. And to get the Y scale clean 50db down you need a very quite place. To get the X scale down to 100hz you need to be 10ft off the ground. Needless to say, I've never done it to my satisfaction. I do think a lot can be gleaned from a measurement like that though. If you can do it down to 50hz you could possibly identify "muddy" bass. Also "shouty" treble. "Smeared" mids. Etc.
Click to expand...

Well said!
A CSD plot done properly is the single most revealing measurement.
Cheers
D.
 
#253
tuxedocivic said:
True outdoors would eliminate the polar issues. But you didn't see the rest of the list? That and I don't think it's a good idea to listen outdoors for this sort of thing. The polars matter where we actually listen to speakers.
Click to expand...

A proper listening test tries to eliminate as many variables and biases as possible. If reflections are part of the listening test the results wouldn't be helpful because a multitude of variabes are tested at the same time and there's no way to tell what is causing what.

If reflections are eliminated and drivers with the same equalized response sound the same then we know that distortion is not a significant factor in the drivers tested and that all the differences we hear are simply caused by the way a speaker interacts with the room.
If there are differences between the drivers under anechoic conditions then we would be able to correlate which measurable differences lead to different sound and which do not.
In any case we would learn something meaningful.
 
#254
Well, you wanted to know if drivers would sound different if eq'ed the same and I say yes and provided a list of reasons why. Distortion was only one of the listed reasons. If you remove polars and axial response then it's even harder to hear a difference but the answer is still yes. I was only trying to answer you question.
 
#255
tuxedocivic said:
Well, you wanted to know if drivers would sound different if eq'ed the same and I say yes and provided a list of reasons why. Distortion was only one of the listed reasons. If you remove polars and axial response then it's even harder to hear a difference but the answer is still yes. I was only trying to answer you question.
Click to expand...

So you did test this? How? Care to elaborate?
 
#257
?? I already listed the objective differences you could expect. I have not DBA compared similar 4" full range drivers outside. I have done similar things though. Why are you so certain axial response is the only thing that matters? Of course it isn't or we wouldn't measure anything but axial response. The MA would probably destroy the Vifa with it's superior bass output alone. It also probably has a high SPL limit. The 700hz issue may give a midrange clarity edge to the Vifa I don't know. But distortion would get pretty high right there, once eq'ed flat. Which driver has a more linear excursion (Klippel) I don't know.

All these things are quite minor, but they are audible IME.
 
#258
I think there has been enough research done on how ragged off axis frequency response, through early reflections will affect listening preferences.

Unless you are talking about equing the driver in such a way that it's off-axis irregularities (if there are any) are also eq'ed out (if that is even possible) then I would have thought that there was a high likelyhood that in a room differences could be heard.

I can make a crossover that results in a flat frequency response that sounds absolutely terrible. I can make another with the same drivers that is also flat but sounds very good. flat on axis is not the only thing that matters 🙂

Tony.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom