Jon,
1)What was the distance from the driver under test to the listener?
2)What was the distance from the driver under test to each room boundary?
3)What was the distance from the listener's head to each room boundary?
4)What was the RT 60 of the listening environment?
5)What was the average SPL (dBC slow) at the listening position?
Cheers,
Art
fair enough. Personally i doubt that a metal mid vs a paper mid, even if eq'ed to measure exactly the same, would sound identical on a long term basis.
my direction in hifi is simplification. no eq for me, i use well behaved drivers that match well together without the need of various eq.
Last edited:
Thank you for the explanation.
But this premise is wrong:
A null result when testing devices with known and measurable differences should be considered a failure of testing protocol, not a publishable result in itself.
The question of this test, of all these tests, was not to challenge the (undeniable) fact that there are measurable differences between pieces of equipment. But rather to know if these differences ''on paper'' were differentiable to the human ear.
To be honest, I'm still amazed that people don't quite understand this simple concept.
It would be interesting to see measurements, but that would probably spoil the party.Good gracious Jon, you have crapped on the hifi altar. Now the audio inquisition is coming to get ya
I've done the same with cone material, although on myself and friends. Metal, paper, sounds the same once corrected and in the comfort zone. And if one ask, why corrected, duh?
Finally!
Questionning the methodology, at last! Thank you Art, genuine thanks. I will get back with the answers later as I don't have my notes in front of me.
I will not read any of it, only reading the thread you just started. In this thread you claim to have done an experiment, what about the details you just got done asking someone else for, that doesn't apply to you too?
I think Toole would be appalled at the idea that significant conclusions could be drawn from this test.
Making it a "blind" test is a necessary, but far, far from sufficient condition to have any meaningful results.
As several of us have said here, and Toole so strongly points out, the qualifications of the listeners is one of the essential elements to successful testing. And there is no reason to believe that existed in this case.
Well, don't be mad at me but that's another wrong premise:
you are just proving what all of us here already knew
''all of us'', for starters, that is quite vague.
Also, from my observations, for people ''who knows'' they take decisions that are going the opposite way: spending money, time and energy on things that are not audible, therefore useless on the final results...
John, when you calibrated SPL and did equalizing at the listening position, your conclusions are completely useless.
You not only measured direct sound from the speaker but also the reflected sound (probably even more reflected than direct sound).
Two inch and ten inch mids have very different off axis behaviour by definition.
Replacing your measurement set up let's say two feet to the left or right, and you'd have to repeat everything again.
So, you might have created a set up where you don't hear a difference, but it's only for that very tight sweet spot.
Then you better stay with headphones....
You not only measured direct sound from the speaker but also the reflected sound (probably even more reflected than direct sound).
Two inch and ten inch mids have very different off axis behaviour by definition.
Replacing your measurement set up let's say two feet to the left or right, and you'd have to repeat everything again.
So, you might have created a set up where you don't hear a difference, but it's only for that very tight sweet spot.
Then you better stay with headphones....
Jon,
You may want to answer the methodology questions from #15 also, and include the information in your original post (as the OP, you can edit indefinitely), to save from answering those questions again later.
Art
It would be interesting to see measurements, but that would probably spoil the party.
Where's the party? I'm always game for a party
I can't dig them up now as I'm not at home for at least two weeks. But as I remember, measurements were absolutely not 100% matched between the 6 inch drivers, yet it was not possible to tell which one was which.
Test was flawed as always, with a null result. What does that tell you? We're deaf, dumb AND blind and you're not?
Jon, I'm particularity interested in you EQ methodology.
As in:
How were each of the drivers mounted?
How did you measure each of the drivers to determine corrections... what software, measuring distance, room etc?
What degree of EQ correction was applied? To what smoothing?
If IIR, how many filters, Q limitations, etc, ..... or perhaps FIR? If FIR, what software?
How did you level match? Using broad band pink for instance? Or a few discrete tones?
Please understand, I am not asking these questions to chop away at your tests / statements / conclusions.
I'm asking because I spend a great deal of time on processing, learning how to make very different type systems sound the same, other than for pattern control.
As in:
How were each of the drivers mounted?
How did you measure each of the drivers to determine corrections... what software, measuring distance, room etc?
What degree of EQ correction was applied? To what smoothing?
If IIR, how many filters, Q limitations, etc, ..... or perhaps FIR? If FIR, what software?
How did you level match? Using broad band pink for instance? Or a few discrete tones?
Please understand, I am not asking these questions to chop away at your tests / statements / conclusions.
I'm asking because I spend a great deal of time on processing, learning how to make very different type systems sound the same, other than for pattern control.
I wouldn't dare to presume what you did or didn't hear and why would it have any relevance to me? These discussions are always pointless and go nowhere, endless repetition and ducking and diving. As someone alluded to, the OP has used a variation of his usual clickbait thread title, he's probably just bored.
- Status
- Not open for further replies.