Jussi said:
I hesitate to put any percentage assesment on current technology vs. future technology - but IMO I'd feel pretty comfortable in saying that our current ability to measure loudspeakers (all measurements currently known) is less than 50% of defining "accurate" sound.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not "down" on measurements - its just the correlation (or interpretation) of the measurements we do have can sometimes be over-emphasised to the detriment of real accuracy. (..the proverbial: "throwing the baby out with the bath water"). A perfect example was the THD wars of the 70's on stereo equipment where the emphasis was on lower and lower THD spec.s in the belief that specifically lowering THD would provide greater accuracy.
Scott,
If measurements are made well and from different views they give pretty good image how something works.
But there aren't just couple variables. For example normal amp measurements have S/N, THD and response while there are several dozen measurable variables. For example this 70's THD war lead to very powerful feedback in amplifier design which leads to TIM and DIM distorsions.
So making something by the book technically isn't that easy. Different variables and their parametres combine together this audible sound and fixing something better might lead something else go worse at the same time. Similar effects on speakers as well. Use steep slope crossover and have less excursion and distorsion, more stable response to different angles and meanwhile mess up phaseresponse and add more and more components to crossover. Crossovercomponents have variables of their own and so on.
Unfortunately its impossible to try out each variable with their parametres how they change overall sound since changing one changes more or less other things.
And since most systems still are man made and all of them are balanced with same variables I don't see a need for moonlight or some other factor X to come along.
In Finland I know one perfectionist amplifier builder. He has top notch equipment and training and is building amps without commercial pressure, just for research. His latest prototypes kick *** and crush many myths that hang around amplifier designing.
Commercial manufacturers don't have that much desire to even try invent something new while old carbage in pretty packadge sells. And most or even all DIY builders don't have the time or resources to execute such task.
Naturally this is just one issue objective and subjective people fight along and its never going to end. I don't want to take either side but I like to think there is a reasonable explanation to different phenomenons in this business.
And like said if something sounds subjectively good but doesn't have textbook measurements thats perfectly fine. We're trying to pleasure our personal taste and ears, not measuring gear. But on the other hand I believe all thought technical compromisse also sounds very good. But it doesn't come by running after one or two things, its important to visualize the whole packadge.
Jussi
If measurements are made well and from different views they give pretty good image how something works.
But there aren't just couple variables. For example normal amp measurements have S/N, THD and response while there are several dozen measurable variables. For example this 70's THD war lead to very powerful feedback in amplifier design which leads to TIM and DIM distorsions.
So making something by the book technically isn't that easy. Different variables and their parametres combine together this audible sound and fixing something better might lead something else go worse at the same time. Similar effects on speakers as well. Use steep slope crossover and have less excursion and distorsion, more stable response to different angles and meanwhile mess up phaseresponse and add more and more components to crossover. Crossovercomponents have variables of their own and so on.
Unfortunately its impossible to try out each variable with their parametres how they change overall sound since changing one changes more or less other things.
And since most systems still are man made and all of them are balanced with same variables I don't see a need for moonlight or some other factor X to come along.
In Finland I know one perfectionist amplifier builder. He has top notch equipment and training and is building amps without commercial pressure, just for research. His latest prototypes kick *** and crush many myths that hang around amplifier designing.
Commercial manufacturers don't have that much desire to even try invent something new while old carbage in pretty packadge sells. And most or even all DIY builders don't have the time or resources to execute such task.
Naturally this is just one issue objective and subjective people fight along and its never going to end. I don't want to take either side but I like to think there is a reasonable explanation to different phenomenons in this business.
And like said if something sounds subjectively good but doesn't have textbook measurements thats perfectly fine. We're trying to pleasure our personal taste and ears, not measuring gear. But on the other hand I believe all thought technical compromisse also sounds very good. But it doesn't come by running after one or two things, its important to visualize the whole packadge.
Jussi
Jussi said:
Exactly. Do we know all the variables? Did the engineers know about TIM or DIM back then, and if they did - did they give these variables any credence?
More precisely, on the variables we do know, do we know how much (or little) "weight" should be given to describe "accurate" sound (at least for the average person)?
Finally, considering alterations when changing variables - which variables should be given priority? For instance the recent Wilson Audio thread was started by a person that seems quite enamored with freq. response on-axis at 1 meter anechoic. How important is this measurement when compared to other measurements when defining accuracy? (.. I know I don't listen at 1 meter in a anechoic enviorment.) From our recent discussions on your design it would appear that you place great emphasis on THD, but do you even know how you personally re-act to the type, level, and quantity of that distortion AND how you would place it in a pantheon of AUDIBLE personal requirements?
(i.e. a LOT of questions and not so many answers.)
still, I do like the CSD of that driver below 1 kHz (when compared to most other drivers of this sort). and I'd like to hear them.. but I think that I probably never will.
Scott,
These are intresting issues and they are never going to get solved if there isn't will to solve them.
I've asked about amps from that research dude and according to him it's easy to find tons of differences between electronic equipment while measurements extend below the surface that publications measure. Naturally it isn't necessary to measure everything in a magazine, this would eat too much pagespace and most of the stuff is also impossible to understand to common reader.
But still those basic measurements give some hint if some system is clearly colorating signal. For example 10-20% THD in amplifier isn't anymore small problem, it's messing up signal on purpose.
For example that amp research has stopped optimizing THD long ago. Its settled to around 0,0004% without any global feedback, not bad. And he's now focusing on many other aspects. Those amps are build that TIM or DIM distorsion can't even form and so on. Normal measured numbers are very impressive and a lot of different littlethings are also considered. And the amp even sounds superb.
I seem to put too much weight in that THD business. It's just one parameter I'd like to know from a driver. Unfortunately mostly I can get is subjective listening impressions from already made products or systems where tons of other variables effect on impression that listener gets from certain driver. So it can be better or it can be worse or it can be just that, depending on how other things are done. I'd love facts.
But if I put my preferences as high as I'd like to I would have to build my own drivers while there are no such thing build. One has this problem, other that.
World is a cruel place for a perfectionist. Everything would have to be researched and build by themselves. No time and resources for that so try to take best compromisse. "Best compromisse", what a ridiculous term to begin with.
I'd like to take these known parametres into count and maybe then consider some X factors but considering amount of variables and their relations one to another I'd guess pretty many audible differences are purely explained by balancing these things. And naturally there possibly are some parametres that just confuse and don't have that much input on overall performance. And is it even possible to have a system that sounds similar enough to another system but both are balanced differently?
Like said, human hearing is a easy thing to fool and different people explain themselves differences with their limited knowledge as well as they can. Unfortunately this hits the wall when you don't change the parametre you think causes something and still sound is different.
Commercial business is just one drawback and in most cases it just doesn't help absolute progress towards better knowledge. Guessing is easy, knowledge is everything.
Jussi
These are intresting issues and they are never going to get solved if there isn't will to solve them.
I've asked about amps from that research dude and according to him it's easy to find tons of differences between electronic equipment while measurements extend below the surface that publications measure. Naturally it isn't necessary to measure everything in a magazine, this would eat too much pagespace and most of the stuff is also impossible to understand to common reader.
But still those basic measurements give some hint if some system is clearly colorating signal. For example 10-20% THD in amplifier isn't anymore small problem, it's messing up signal on purpose.
For example that amp research has stopped optimizing THD long ago. Its settled to around 0,0004% without any global feedback, not bad. And he's now focusing on many other aspects. Those amps are build that TIM or DIM distorsion can't even form and so on. Normal measured numbers are very impressive and a lot of different littlethings are also considered. And the amp even sounds superb.
I seem to put too much weight in that THD business. It's just one parameter I'd like to know from a driver. Unfortunately mostly I can get is subjective listening impressions from already made products or systems where tons of other variables effect on impression that listener gets from certain driver. So it can be better or it can be worse or it can be just that, depending on how other things are done. I'd love facts.
But if I put my preferences as high as I'd like to I would have to build my own drivers while there are no such thing build. One has this problem, other that.
World is a cruel place for a perfectionist. Everything would have to be researched and build by themselves. No time and resources for that so try to take best compromisse. "Best compromisse", what a ridiculous term to begin with.
I'd like to take these known parametres into count and maybe then consider some X factors but considering amount of variables and their relations one to another I'd guess pretty many audible differences are purely explained by balancing these things. And naturally there possibly are some parametres that just confuse and don't have that much input on overall performance. And is it even possible to have a system that sounds similar enough to another system but both are balanced differently?
Like said, human hearing is a easy thing to fool and different people explain themselves differences with their limited knowledge as well as they can. Unfortunately this hits the wall when you don't change the parametre you think causes something and still sound is different.
Commercial business is just one drawback and in most cases it just doesn't help absolute progress towards better knowledge. Guessing is easy, knowledge is everything.
Jussi
"How important is this measurement when compared to other measurements when defining accuracy?"
Single anechoic response from a speaker doesn't tell that much. Energy response is telling a lot more but far from everything.
Maybe measuring responses from different angles, define combfilter problems, measure cabinet vibrations and CSD, put the whole thing in pieces and test all used components separately and so on... Maybe get some idea.
Naturally we need DIY persons and companys that build something with only one eye open. They are the people that take one or few parametres to the limit and gain very valuables information how to optimize them. But overally listening such system doesn't tell much. Sure it can sound good, why not, it's enough for most people. I just like to know does it sound so good while its that and that variable is so well optimized or because that and that variable is thrown out of the window.
Maybe I could stop thinking like this if I someday hear a system that doesn't have anything wrong with it. Maybe. Naturally even that can always be done better and this is one thing that should push us forward toward infinity and beyond...
At middleages people thought we know it all. Earth is flat and alchemists tried to convert lead into gold which is very common practice even nowadays. Sitting and relaxing is easy, system sounds like that, fine, lets listen some music. Naturally this has to be the method while relaxing and listening to music but there should be totally different drive while developing things and pushing standards further and further.
Jussi
Single anechoic response from a speaker doesn't tell that much. Energy response is telling a lot more but far from everything.
Maybe measuring responses from different angles, define combfilter problems, measure cabinet vibrations and CSD, put the whole thing in pieces and test all used components separately and so on... Maybe get some idea.
Naturally we need DIY persons and companys that build something with only one eye open. They are the people that take one or few parametres to the limit and gain very valuables information how to optimize them. But overally listening such system doesn't tell much. Sure it can sound good, why not, it's enough for most people. I just like to know does it sound so good while its that and that variable is so well optimized or because that and that variable is thrown out of the window.
Maybe I could stop thinking like this if I someday hear a system that doesn't have anything wrong with it. Maybe. Naturally even that can always be done better and this is one thing that should push us forward toward infinity and beyond...
At middleages people thought we know it all. Earth is flat and alchemists tried to convert lead into gold which is very common practice even nowadays. Sitting and relaxing is easy, system sounds like that, fine, lets listen some music. Naturally this has to be the method while relaxing and listening to music but there should be totally different drive while developing things and pushing standards further and further.
Jussi
Jussi said:
I agree - but the context of the original statment in this thread was that the driver's measurements were not particularly good compared to similar drivers. (..with the perhaps the implied suggestion that the driver's were not worth anywhere near the price as a result.) My response was that:
1. The CSD plots in a certain bandwidth seemed better than similar drivers. and..
2. (under our current discussion) that measurements may do little to convey the driver's sound quality in comparison to similar drivers. In otherwords - I'm trying to broaden your perspective. On that note (and in this discussion) see what Tom Danley has just written on that very same Wilson Audio thread:
http://www.diyaudio.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&postid=803295#post803295
ScottG said:
Good to hear it! Around me people are fireing off fireworks while I watch (..so good so far!).
It 2:30am here in the UK and everythings winding down now, family just out the door and I still feel like partying! One of the few years that I haven't been drunk and I'll certainly feel better for it in the morning.
No fireworks here
Plenty of idiots adlibing with their car horns earlier on though.All the best in 06' and here's to a productive speaker building year!
ScottG said:
Comparing to some other 7" driver measurements from the same magazine, I don't see any particular superiority of its CSD below 1Khz. And at just above 1Khz, it is ugly.
On the note to Tom Danley's post, I've just read it following the link. I think you are misreading the things Tom Danley written between the lines (may be not so between the lines)
Or I am the one who is reading it wrong, but consider this, the driver is considerably expensive, the info posted is from a magazine, and the info posted doesn't show any particular superiority. Other than it has a 90db efficiency, which is nice.Feyz said:
Well its a metalcone unit and they have limited usable bandwidth as we know. But how narrow bandwidth is still usable?
W18 serie Excels are pretty good 150-1500Hz range. This Zellaton doesn't reach that well above 1Khz. What's the use for 7" midwoofer? It would require a waveguide large tweeter or more complicated 3-way construction with small midrange to work. And while size is only 7" it doesn't have that much displacement to play bass either. For example in range of 150-1000Hz, is this really worth that money?
I've wondered this same thing with those 23W Scan Speak subwoofers. Owned a pair some time ago but I still don't see whats the purpose. They don't fit into particularly small cabinet, sure look good but are very expensive, unefficient and small. With price of single 23W I can invest pair of 12" XLS Peerless woofers and performance against single 8" is in totally different range.
Naturally other issues, like the looks, should be considered but at least for me there comes a limit pretty soon. For example those C90 Accuton mids. I've considered them couple of times but still haven't found a reason to invest a pair. And that even considering those published measurements would be correct. 700 euro a pair here. Could invest two pairs of W18EX with 600 euros and even from those Accuton measurements C90 can't beat that.
Issue isn't that simple. W18 combo would be MTM while C90 MT. But even a single W18 doesn't shame with its measurements against C90.
I don't want to invest expensive stuff just because they are expensive. There are lots of expensive or even very expensive stuff in the market that don't have that much quality behind its price. Naturally everybody should draw the line themselves. In many cases wallet draws the line but even after that common sense over drooling of high tech is only a vice thing.
Personally I wouldn't even consider W18 for my project, don't appreciate the looks that much (even while they are pretty cool looking) but it seems it's very hard to find similarly performing unit with lesser price. But in this case that's pretty much the line. Don't know enough facts from more expensive units and even if their published numbers are correct they don't justify the price.
Jussi
ScottG said:
In absolute terms they don't. Not that much. For example a little poorer distorsion numbers aren't that audible in casual listening but they still roll over some small details and smear sound. And if listening level is raised problems multiply and sound gets tiring.
But as for this driver I'd consider a major breakup in 1-2Khz range a major flaw. It's not just a notch in response, like few drivers have, but also very visible artifact in impedanceresponse and waterfall, propably in distorsion as well.
I know few designs where for example W18E are runned to 3,3Khz and crossed to a ribbon there but I don't think its in its best out there.
Darn, I don't remember that old Seas middome. Once Seas produced this 2" or similar size midrange dome. It's phenomenal in it's range, in all aspects. Only the range is about 700-900Hz.
Jussi
Feyz said:
Comparing to some other 7" driver measurements from the same magazine, I don't see any particular superiority of its CSD below 1Khz. And at just above 1Khz, it is ugly.
On the note to Tom Danley's post, I've just read it following the link. I think you are misreading the things Tom Danley written between the lines (may be not so between the lines)
What other driver's of similar size (and bandwidth) are down that far (25-30 db down) from 500-1kHz? Maybe what I'm not seeing is other similar drivers specifically tested by Hobby Hi-Fi (..so my view point could be skewed on this issue)?
Tom Danley appears to be presenting BOTH views (pro and con) - with a reason for "limited measurent" based on commercial bias. In otherwords its a broader perspective, (though not neccesarily the "correct" perspective - if there is such a thing), which is why I liked it (that and the fact that Tom is quite skilled with measurements).
Jussi said:
I personally wouldn't consider the problem at 1.3-1.7 kHz either break-up or a major problem.
To me it looks more like a cavity resonance due to the specific cone flare near the VC. In fact the driver appears to have little ill effects of break-up (around the 4-5 kHz range).
The CSD is down some 10+ db in the problem area, (more like 20 db beyond 1 ms), and distortion just breaches the 1% mark (with 2nd and 3rd). (I'd personally consider the 3rd order distortion the most problematic, but "just" audible and likely not offensive at this level.) Even the freq. linearity on-axis isn't that bad and could well be compensated for in the crossover, or with a tweeter that extends low, or a secondary "upper" midrange - none of which seems any more complex than what is required for a seas excel driver (..as an example).
You know its funny you should mention the seas (and with our discussion on wave-guids and such) - consider Zaphs measurement of the Seas 27TBFCG. Imagin what this would be like with a large front circular horn loaded to below 500 Hz (with about 10- 12 db of gain at the cut-off) and just used as an upper midrange not unlike a typical 2-4 inch dome midrange?
ScottG said:
Still I don't consider this Zellaton worth even near its price if these Hobby Hifi measurements are correct. And the THD is measured to 90dB SPL. Standard 7" Peerless HDS hits below 0,5% THD at way broader range to 90dB SPL, has much smoother response and doesn't suffer breakup problems. Sure W18 has it's problems. 3rd harmonic rises around 1,6Khz but it also drops some of it while that major 4,5Khz resonance peak is handeled. And it still handles most of it's range below 0,3% THD at 96dB which is also different case than 90dB.
As for example Excels are relatively easy to beat in distorsion. Add copperrings in HDS motor and you're there. Cost is 1/3rd of Excels. I guess these expensive units aren't getting that much better and meanwhile common standard units improve fast. Naturally other aspects to consider but in mean performance without status or looks...
The Seas you mensioned has pretty good numbers. But to 500Hz, even with a high order filter so excursion rise stops there, it can reach 100dB level with that 12dB addition from horn before running out of linear and propably also out of mechanical excursion limits. Finnish Amphion uses Seas made 1" domes with waveguide down to 1200Hz and have about 9dB assistance from guide. Even that causes differences in radiation pattern since it isn't easy to make that directive midrange unit down there to finish.
Jussi
ScottG said:
Naturally. Need more info. Prefer facts. Unfortunately not so much available and I don't have financial means to buy them all, test and throw bad ones away...
From price itself it makes at least me wonder is it really worth it's price. No mather how good it is. But this might be my wallet talking...
Jussi
Jussi said:
True, but there is the fact that Srajan liked the speakers with the drivers A LOT. And that Magico could have used ANY driver, but chose this one for that particular 2-way. (Magico obviously is not limited by expense - the GOTO and ALE drivers they use on their other designs are I believe THE most expensive commercially available loudspeaker drivers on the planet - for a given bandwidth anyway.)
That could be information you value. At the very least I think its information that at least suggests the impetus to find out for yourself (i.e. personally) if you think the driver is worth that much - provided it is financially prudent. (..like you I'd "bail" here as well (ehmm, we sufferers of fiscal limitations), even with the 30 day return ability we have in the States.)
It also makes me wonder just based on price alone. I mean, if it is BETTER - how much better could it really be?
Selecting one driver to a propably heavily priced (is there any other way if midwoofer costs this much?) doesn't have to be any connected to technical details. I know few manufacturers that have changed Peerless woofers to Scan Speak just for marketing, its not so great thing having 70 euro Peerless woofer in expensive speaker. Not that the sound would change that much or at all but gives more credit to the buyer.
As for DIY I don't know what this would be. Fooling myself? Knowing myself I guess that might even work...
And like mensioned there are even expensive drivers that are already build as instruments. Just like some electronics gear. Nothing wrong with it, different people need different cures for their needs. But it just doesn't have anything to do with technical performance or true to original (whats in the recording) reproduction.
But like you propably know with present quality of recordings I don't see any sin listening a pretty lie produced by the system compared to cold and brutal truth.
Jussi
As for DIY I don't know what this would be. Fooling myself? Knowing myself I guess that might even work...
And like mensioned there are even expensive drivers that are already build as instruments. Just like some electronics gear. Nothing wrong with it, different people need different cures for their needs. But it just doesn't have anything to do with technical performance or true to original (whats in the recording) reproduction.
But like you propably know with present quality of recordings I don't see any sin listening a pretty lie produced by the system compared to cold and brutal truth.
Jussi
Thats a possible explanation for the driver's consideration, another is exclusivity.
Still, this is guessing at Magico's reasons for driver selection - without accounting for Srajan's view. Additionally Magico went for a Horn based design for their "ultimate" loudspeaker - this seems to me to be counter to public perception and thus counter to your hypothesis.
Still, this is guessing at Magico's reasons for driver selection - without accounting for Srajan's view. Additionally Magico went for a Horn based design for their "ultimate" loudspeaker - this seems to me to be counter to public perception and thus counter to your hypothesis.
- Status
- This old topic is closed. If you want to reopen this topic, contact a moderator using the "Report Post" button.